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

On 04-12-08 20:04, altamix wrote:

> that is what I was afraid of. I mean, neither Hungarian would make
> out of an "ts" an "sz". I say "neither" since it is unknown to me
> that ROm. does it. All the loans does not show a such change where
> the foreign word have had an "s" and it is reflected as "ts" in Rom.

I'll have to look into that.

> I have to add, I do know about a such alternance in the Rom.- Alb.
> equivalences:
>
> Rom. "secara" -Alb. "thekër" ( < *sekar-
> Rom. "tsarc" - Alb. "thark" ( < *tsarc)
> Rom. "tsap" - Alb. "thap" ( < *tsap)
> Rom. "sâmbure" - Alb. "thumbull" (< *sembulle (?))

They may reflect different substitution at particular times, namely [ts]

> [ts] at an early date and [þ] > [s] in later loanwords (after the

spirantisation of Proto-Alb. *c), although I'm not really sure.

> BTW Piotr, I remember you have not agreed at that
> time as Vinereanu said IE k^> Rom. "ts" but I am not very sure now.

No. The regular development is of course PIE *k^ > Lat. k > Rom. k ~ c^.
[ts] for PIE *k^ appears in old loanwords from Albanian. I don't
question that, of course.

> A suggestion now should be that *sarka is indeed an satem form of an
> *k^er +suff "-ka"; if so, then Hung. "sarka" is a loan from Slavic (
> tipic satem "s") and Rom. "ts" in "tsarka" is the expected (?) reflex
> of IE "*k^"; this assumtion should be sustained by "tsep"
> lat "cippus", Alb. "thep" ( < IE k^eip-) and there are for sure more
> other examples.

But Rom. cep comes straight from Lat. cippus (var. of ci:pus). Alb. thep
'jag' < *k^oipo- is related but independent.

Piotr