> 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.
It seems there is Szaraka as a surname, but methinks it should be proven
whether it really has to do with <szarka>, and not with the Romanian
word and surname <Sãrac> or <Sãrãcan> "poor, pauper" or with int'l
reflexes of... <Sarazin> (old memories of the first clashes between
Christians and Muslims in the early Middle Ages).
OTOH: to my own "ears" regarding Hung. vocal harmony, <szarka>
looks very natural even if it were to be derived from some <sraka
or sroka> *without an intermediate <szaraka>*. (For example, if
I were to build a Hungarian word out of the Slavic <mraz> or <mroz>,
I'd propose <marz> or <morz>, and an opinion poll in Hungary
"Does it sound okay in Hungarian?" would result in "Yes." in more
than 95% of the replies given by the questioned. A 2nd question
"Is rather <maraz> or <moroz> necessary?" would give "Nope."
(Do, anyone of you, verify my assertion with Hungarian native-speakers,
either average ones or linguists.)
Besides, I suppose it is noteworthy that incidentally <szarka> could
be the natural diminutival word for <szar> "shit", i.e. it'd be
<shitlet>
or <Scheisserchen>. However, it isn't (& I ain't aware of exceptions).
Hungarians say instead of this something having a further suffix:
-ocs [otS]. Namely: <szarocska> ['sOroc^kO] (check it up for yourself
via Google). Moreover: another word with similar phonetics is
<szarv> "horn, antlers" => <szarvas> "deer" or in composita e.g.
<szarvasbika> "horned bull". Here again, nobody thinks of the...
almost look-alike coproword at tha same time.
What puzzles me in the entire story is that (1) <szarka> contains
-ka which looks like the diminutival suffix -ka (with other vowels in
the root => -ke), but it isn't perceived as such (AFAIK), neither is it
put together with the idea "small piece of turd", although the form
fits it 100%: <szar> => <szarka>; (2) if <szarka> were a loanw.
< tzarcã, then I'd expect it to be <szárka> [sa:r], not <szarka>.
That is, it would sound more natural to preserve the [a] which is
used in Romanian, than to transform it into a Hungarian [O], and,
if so, *for what phonetic reason?* (I'd ask).
Also noteworthy on the other hand is the fact that <szárka>
would then... collide with an already extant <szárka>, which is
the diminutive of <szár>, that has various meanings, such as
"stem, stalk, leg, shaft, piece". (Whether this would've impeded
a <szárka> with the additional meaning "magpie", I'm not able
to say. IMHO, only a linguist specialized in Hungarian linguistics
could give an answer.)
But lastly, as I already once mentioned, in Romanian <tzarcã> is
not the principal word, but it is rather a regional one, especially used
in Romanian speaking areas that have been closer historically (hence
dialectally) and geographically to the Hungarian population - whereas
the remotest Romanian populaces from the same points of view would
rather use the synonym <cotzofanã>. Romanian professional linguists
anyway have in all dictionaries said: "tzarcã: < Magyar <szarka>"
as well as "cotzofana: compare with Ucrainian <kucohvostyp>". (Just
have a look at the versions collected in the DEX pages online.)
AFAIK, in Transylvania, where there live Romanian-speaking and
Hungarian-speaking people, there are people with the surname
Szarka (lots of them googleable) as well as a li'l bit Romanianized
Sarca. But bearers of the surname Tzarcã or Tzarca must be extremely
rare - if any. (The Rum. phone directory is of little help, since a
few Tarca mentioned therein might be Tarca or Tarcã (with initial [t],
not [tz]) - a word with a completely different meaning.)
> 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).
Not only accidental, but even natural. (My disadvantage is that I can't
demonstrate it, not being a scholar; I only can rely on my own poor
knowledge and "feeling" - but a feeling of someone who got
accustomed to many features due to growing up as a child among
native-speakers who were nextdoor neighbors.) [According to
the "feeling", Hungarians could've very well constructed a different
form, e.g. <szarok>; yet this one would've been even more
striking because of the... coproword: <szarok> is vulgar/rude:
"I shit/am shitting;" and is the plural of <szar> as well. But
<szarok> would fit <c^varok> in a wonderful way, wouldn't it? :-)
(BTW, we can see how important is to differentiate in writing as
well: with a or with á - i.e. completely different meanings.)
> Piotr
George