From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 43739
Date: 2006-03-09
>Please read again.
> At 8:10:54 PM on Wednesday, March 8, 2006, alexandru_mg3
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@>
> > wrote:
>
> >> --- alexandru_mg3 <alexandru_mg3@> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> Being for sure now, a later formation could be : an
> >>> internal one or a loan *=> you need to accept at least
> >>> the possibility to be a loan once it couldn't be derived
> >>> directly from PIE)
>
> >> ****GK: If a term can be understood to be the outcome
> >> of an internal development, the "possibility" of a
> >> loan becomes utterly remote.******
>
> >> Now let me ask you this: why do you suppose Slavs had to
> >> "borrow" a foreign concept as fundamental as "cause"?
>
> > I don't know...maybe because that concept wasn't 'so
> > fundamental' for them as you think (this is a joke,
> > George)
>
> >> How did they express this concept prior to
> >> their advent into the Balkans? On the totally
> >> incredible assumption that they had no such concept of
> >> their own before the 6th century AD, why would they
> >> not have borrowed it from the language of other
> >> powerful neighbours such as the Sarmatians or the
> >> Goths? Or even the Greeks?
>
> > Now seriously:
>
> > It's simple: because the meaning 'cause' is a later
> > generalization (any generalization arrived 'later',
>
> This misses George's point completely. If the Slavs already
> had a word meaning 'cause', what was it, and why did they
> borrow another after they got to the Balkans? You surely
> don't seriously want to maintain that they had no word for
> it before then, do you?
>
> [...]
>
> > Some additional Notes (not linked with the topic): a) I
> > will exclude from your 'assertions' the paragraph with
> > 'that powerfull neighbours' ...and of course, 'the less
> > powerfull ones', isn't it, George?
>
> No, it isn't: George said nothing about *more* or *less*
> powerful neighbors. In fact, his phrase 'other powerful
> neighbors' actually implies that your preferred source was
> *also* powerful.
>
> And if you ignore this paragraph, you are ignoring an
> important argument against your preferred scenario.
>
> [...]
>
> > b) However even taking your 'non-democratic-context' into
> > account => if you quote here Sarmatians, Goths etc...'as
> > more powerfull nations' than the 'Roman Empire' for sure
> > you have some additional problems...
>
> He didn't say that, either.
>
> [...]
>
> Brian
>