--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
>
> > [mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Miguel Carrasquer
>
> > Both c^inU and c^initi are a.p. c, so there is no doubt that
> > the basic intonation was falling, both in pri- and in -c^ina.
> > The fact that it's a compound a-stem with a "minusovyj"
> > prefix explains the fixed (a.p. a) accentuation on the root,
> > at least for Russian: see Zaliznjak 2.26.
>
> Yes, if one takes the Moscow "valencies" doctrine for granted. But
> actually the fixed accentuation on the root can be explained as
the
> effect of Dybo's Law if one supposes the ictus was initially fixed
on
> the (non-acute) prefix (as is always the case with Lith. prie- --
> <príedanga> etc., Lithuanian has generalized acute, while Slavic --
> non-acute).
>
> My problem is that a long falling pitch accent should have yielded
> the ictus back to the prefix according to the original (Stang's)
> formualtion of Stang's Law ('retraction from medial or final
> circumflex', like in *nosîs^i > *nòsis^i or *be^lâgo > *bé^lago).
> Kortlandt's formulation (retraction 'from long falling vowels in
> final syllables') lets the ictus rest on the root, though.
>
> Anyway, *pric^îna (a) is a bit awkward a reconstruction for my
taste.
>
> Sergei
>
Seems that both of you have a problem to really explain the Slavic
acentuation
Especially such explanations like:
> > The fact that it's a compound a-stem with a "minusovyj"
> > prefix explains the fixed (a.p. a) accentuation on the root,
> > at least for Russian: see Zaliznjak 2.26.
are quite allambicated ones (thist remember me some past similar
trials ...)
Let's try a more simple one:
---------------------------------------------
1. There is no *pri- prefix in *pric^ina
2. We have inside the nil-grade of the PIE root prk'- 'to ask, to
request' > *prk'-no where -no indicate us that 'this is the result
of a to ask/to request action' => so that result is 'a request,a
question, an inquiry' => PAlb/Dacian prícina 'inquiry, trouble' =>
Romanian príc^-ina 'id.'
Note: The above semantic evolution is a natural one => with no 'at'
+ 'arrange' constructions that finally would gave a meaning
like 'trouble, cause'
3. in addition the Romanian accent is on pr'i- => prícinã (< *pr^k'-
no) that is regular => see PIE *bHr^h3g'-(r)o > bár-zã)
4. *pric^ina was loaned in Slavic from PRomanian; and next 'suffered
a confusion' with Slavic c^initi that is from PIE *kWeiH-n- 'to
arrange' (see OCS initial meaning 'to contruct etc..))
-> being a loan => from here 'the unexpected' Slavic accentuation
that should be expected for an inherited Slavic word (see above
discussions and the complications that appear if we would consider
it as an inherited compound based on pri+c^ina )
So Finally Against the idea that *pric^ina is a Slavic inherited
word we have :
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. an un-explained evolution of the Slavic accentuation
2. a semantism that doesn't fit at all: that is based on a
suposed PIE compound :
*pri + *kWei-n(o)- with a dubious initial meaning [word-by-word
translation] : <<'at' + 'arrang-'ed'>> (sic!) => that in addition
arrives to finally mean 'cause, reason. trouble'???
Marius