Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Re[2]: [tied] Rom. tsarca - Lit. s^árka

Expand Messages
  • alex
    ... so far so right. The problem is the time here. Hungarians arrived at the end of X century, almost XI century. The PSl seems to be in a another period of
    Message 1 of 48 , Dec 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Brian M. Scott wrote:
      > At 1:54:24 PM on Thursday, December 2, 2004, alex wrote:
      >
      >> Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
      >
      >>> Hung. szarka is rather obviously a loan from Slavic.
      >
      >> with "a" from "o"?
      >
      > As I understand it, the PSl vowel was a low, back vowel,
      > variously described as weakly rounded and as without
      > *distinctive* rounding; this would make it very similar to
      > Hungarian <a>, which I have usually seen transcribed as [A.]
      > (IPA turned-script-a).
      >
      > Brian

      so far so right. The problem is the time here. Hungarians arrived at the end
      of X century, almost XI century. The PSl seems to be in a another period of
      time, right?

      Alex
    • altamix
      ... ~ c^. ... 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
      Message 48 of 48 , Dec 9, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@i...>
        > 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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.