Piotr wrote:
> The normal treatment of CrV.../ClV... sequences in Hungarian loans
form
> Slavic is epentesis: CVrV.../CVlV... (no matter if in Slavic the
initial
> cluster was original or had developed as a result of liquid
metathesis).
> The second vowel may then be syncopated, leaving only CVr.../CVl...
> provided that Hungarian syllabification rules allow it. This is
what
> happened in
>
> szerda 'Wednesday' <-- *sreda/*sre^da < *serda
>
> but also e.g. in
>
> szalma 'straw' <-- *slama/*sloma < *solma
> szolga 'servant' <-- *sluga
First, I'm glad to see that there isn't a second Methathesis in
Hungarian in all these words...
Based on the information that I got all your examples showing initial
*CR *CL clusters have attested Older Hungarian forms showing the
epenthetic vowels.
Here they are:
1. Sl. *serda > Sl. *sreda/*sre^da > OMagh./Reg. szereda > szerda
(see also: 'Csikszereda' rom. 'Miercurea Ciuc')
(I don't know why you presented this example again after I presented
the vowel inside the regional/older form...)
2. Sl. sluga > OMagh. szuluga > Magh. szolga
3. Sl. slama > OMagh. szalama > Magh. szalma
So All of your examples showing initial *CR *CL clusters has Old
Hungarian attested variants where the epenthetic vowel Clearly
Appears.
This is not the case with Magh. 'szarka' that is older attested
as 'zarka'.
So as I said the syncopation above (that Exists for sure nobody
denied it) is a very recent phenomenon in Hungarian allowing us to
still have Traces (for all your examples) of old/regional forms
showing the epenthetic vowels.
So Nobody denied the syncopation : I said only that this phenomenon
is not so old so we still have attested Traces of the epenthetic
vowels that is not the case in 'szarka'.
These epenthetic vowels clearly appears also in the other examples
too:
4. Sl. sluba > Magh. zsolozsma
5. Sl. srec'a > Magh. szerencze
6. Sl. brazda > Magh. barázda
7. Sl. klas > Magh. kalász
8. Rom. or Sl. krac^un > Magh. karácsony
9. Sl. kralj > Magh. király
We have an i-syncopation in 2 words: malina > málna, palica > pálca
by both words are not related to initial CL CR loaned clusters:
But this is normal because even in 'szarka' we saw that INNER rk lk
clusters are possible and stable (depending on the stress position in
Old Hungarian and in the source word).
So please do not mix the two cases: we talk here about the treatment
of Initial Loaned Clusters *SR *SL as in case of *sraka/*svraka.
In Conlusion:
For instance the three examples that you gave us are Not Good At All:
because all of them have attested Magyar forms with the epenthetic
vowels that is not the case related to Magyar 'szarka'.
Sl.*sluga > szuluga > szolga
Sl.*sreda > szereda > szerda
Sl.*slama > szalama > szalma
So once again please shows us some examples with Initial Clusters *CL
*CR where the epenthetic vowels dissapeared So Soon that they are Not
Attested in Hungarian as would be the case for 'szarka'.
You cannot show them because these examples Do Not Exists.
As result Magh. 'szarka' cannot be a Slavic Loan from *sraka *svraka
Piotr wrote:
> You'd like to save the etymology by
> adducing Rom. tzarkã, which you would like to be a substratal
> "Proto-Albanian" word. Howevere, the absence of any Albanian
cognates
> renders your claim unprovable.
Sorry, but I don't understand your logic here: If Proto-Albanians
loaned the word for 'dog' (from Latin) this clearly shows that
previously they hadn't a word for dog? (maybe *tsunu or something
similar). Of course they had one, and they lost it. So there is
nothing wrong in this logic.
Secondly: I already posted a second pair of words :
Rom. doina 'popular song' - Lith. daina '(popular) song'
where Rom. 'doina' is also not attested in Albanian, in order not to
work with singularities here.
Note: I also well understood your reserves regarding Rom. oi Lith ai,
but please allow me to come back in another message on this subject
and to open a new topic: in order not to open more topics in the same
time.
I can add here for instance that the regionalism in Transilvania was
'dainã' that seems to be the older form.
(I found this information to:
Hasdeu 'Folcloristica'
Densusianu 'Dictionar Etimologic Rom^an)
The main argument of Rom. 'tsarca' as substratual word is the fact
that it fits perfectly the PIE of Lithuanian word (*k^orh2kah2)
based only on : k^ > ts ; o > a. Is this only a coincidence?
Piotr wrote:
> (2) It is a loan from Romanian (where <tzarkã> isn't even the
ordinary
> word for 'magpie').
You are not right here. The main word for 'magpie' in Transilvania
and Moldova is 'tsarcã' (so 2/3 of the country use it as main
word). 'tsarcã' is also present in South Part of the country too: is
not an unkown word there, where 'cotsofanã' is the main word in use
for 'magpie'.
We have both 'm^atsa' and 'pisica' in Romanian for 'cat': 'pisica'
is used more than 'm^atsa' but this doesn't means that 'm^atsa' is a
recent loan, in fact is much much older than 'pisica'.
> The ultimate origin of PBSl. c'(w)árka: is an independent question.
In
> the light of our previous discussions I consider a borrowing from
> "Dacian" to be a serious hypothesis, one that provides the word
with a
> reasonable etymology (< *kWersnah2) and explains its form much
better
> than any other that I've seen.
I have serious doubts that we have 'rn' in c^ora...'rn' is still
present in Proto-Albanian : see Lat. Infernus 'hell' > Alb. ferr, so
the supposed 'loaning moment' of Romanian c^ora doesn't fit regarding
the timeframes of Alb. c^>s and of Alb. rn > rr.
(But I will come back in a different message too, because seems that
some 'police-men' here count how many lines I wrote...).
Secondly you need to have more examples of loans from Dacian to
Balto-Slavic in order that such an hypothesis become credible (as I
tried to do with Rom. 'doina' - Lith. 'daina' -> same meaning).
Also last but not least: the Romanian kept both words: tsarca and
c^ora both showing a very old phonetism (of course I will not
re-open Magh. 'szarka' history here).
Only the Best,
Marius