[tied] Re: Rom. tsarca - Lit. s^árka

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>

> I'll have to look into that.
>
> > 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.

I accept the usage of "old loanword" but I cannot accept "from
Albanian" in this case; we are obliged to underline these loans have
phoneticaly a pre-Latin character. And there is not possible to speak
about Alb. or ProtoAlbanian, but About Thracians and Ilirians. Just
to remain on the correct timeframe and correct terminology.

>
> > 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

not "cep" (c^ep) but "Tep"(tsep) aka Eng. Spine, Germ. Stachel. its
feminine coutnerpart is to find in DEX as "tseapã" (Teapã) and it is
compared (not derived) with Slavic "c^epati"; strange enough,
Alb. "thep" is not considered there.

Alex