>"Romanian professional linguists anyway have in all dictionaries
>said: "tzarcã: < Magyar <szarka>"
>
>Please consult carefully the best Romanian Linguists before to
>make this kind of global affirmation... I propose to start with
>Densusianu first, and to post here his opinion regarding 'tsarca':
>if it is a loan or not from Hungarian.
>
>Only the Best,
>marius
Just go ahead, do it. Who of them? The philologist and
folklorist Ovid Densu$ianu or Nicolae Densu$ianu, the
author of "Dacia praehistorica"? (The latter's prose rather
belongs to... entertainment than to science.)
I'd anyway pay more heed to what has been searched, assumed
and concluded *meanwhile*, i.e. for circa one century after
their heyday. For, their knowledge was actually that of the
19th c. Today's apparatus is "somewhat" richer & more refined.
Last but not least: when a today's dictionary published
by the Academy of a country says "XYZ," it doesn't mean
a merely automatic compilation. It is a corollary of nearly
everything valuable in sci. research (within the int'l
community) up to the date of publishing. This implies
periodical... updates/upgrades performed in accordance
with up-to-date conclusions by those doing scientific
research.
As for Romanian linguists, there were some important
luminaries who went on studying all these phenomena
decades after both Densu$ianus had passed away. And some
of them even directly coordinated teams of professional
authors who created RO's dictionaries of the 20th century
(some of them being good etymologists). Their work can't
be repelled out of the mere taking into consideration of
some marginal assertion by some author in the past, esp.
when a re-assessment can give no additional substance to
that assertion. (I'd rather put it bluntly: out of a
whim.)
If all this (incl. proportions and rigor) is not taken
into consideration, then any discussion will be to no
avail.
George