Re: [tied] Re: Rom. tsarca - Lit. s^árka

On 04-12-06 16:41, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> First, I'm glad to see that there isn't a second Methathesis in
> Hungarian in all these words...

The net result is what I descibes as a metathesis. CreC eventually
becomes CerC, etc. The fact that it didn't take place in one step is
less important. Many processed classed as metathesis proceed in a
similar way (an epenthetic vowel is added and then the original vowel is
deleted).

> 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

How recent? There are Old Hungarian examples of it. Szerdahely (Dunajska
Streda) was known as Zerda or Zerdahel already in the 13th century.

> These epenthetic vowels clearly appears also in the other examples
> too:
>
> 4. Sl. služba > 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

I gave some of these myself (6, 7, 9). Syncope isn't possible in any of
them because of the restrictions of Hungarian phonotactics. I have
already explained that, so why multiply examples that don't demonstrate
anything new?

> We have an i-syncopation in 2 words: malina > málna, palica > pálca
> by both words are not related to initial CL CR loaned clusters:

Again, I said so myself. Still, syncope is syncope no matter what the
origin of the word. Ordinary speakers are not etymologists.

> 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).

As far as I know, Hungarian stress has always been initial.

> 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.

I know full well what I'm talking about, but thanks for your concern.

> 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.

I wouldn't be so sure. <Szaraka> occurs as a surname, and I'd wait for
the opinion of a competent student of Hungarian before declaring its
non-attestation as categorically as you do. Capitalised Initials Do Not
Strengthen Your Argument.

> As result Magh. 'szarka' cannot be a Slavic Loan from *sraka *svraka

Non sequitur. Syncope _is_ an early phenomenon despite the existence of
full variants. In the case of <szarka>, the absence of a trisyllabic
form may well be accidental (especially as syncope is not as recent as
you make it). Transitional forms may be missing both in linguistics and
in palaeontology.

>> [PG] However, 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.

I said it was unprovable, not absolutely impossible. However, if you
make a bold claim, you need good evidence to support it, and the burden
of proof is on you, not on your critics. May-have-beens are not enough.

Piotr