--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "pielewe" <wrvermeer@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Petr Hrubis <hrubisp@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > *pri- may also mean "to" (Czech pr^ipsat "add
> > writing", pr^ide^lat "to put to, add to" etc.)
> >
> > pri:c^ina "cause" can thus be understood as something
> > that was "added to reach a goal", hence a "cause".
> >
>
> One of the values of *pri- is 'presence', say "privesti" (*ved-
> ) 'cause somebody to be present by leading him/her'
> (= 'bring'), "prizUvati" 'cause somebody to be present by calling'
> (= 'invite'), so "pric^initi" is 'cause something to be present by
> performing some action on it', which to me seems a good way to
> say 'cause'.
>
>
> Willem
More logical is to decompose privesti in pri- 'at' + vesti 'look'
=> so 'to look at'. But even we take *pri as 'a presence' it doesn't
help us to obtain *pric^ina meaning.
To come back to my point, I think that maybe I didn't point out well
my argument:
Everybody that considers *pric^ina as an inherited Slavic word needs
to start with the meaning of the PIE construction and not from later
variations. That supposed PIE construction would be in this case
*pri + *kWei-n(o) but the PIE semantic that he will obtain with this
construction would be :
'at ' + 'arrang-'ed' or 'arrang-'ed' there' etc... that more or
less it's a non-sense [not to add the relation with the current
meaning of *pric^ina 'inquiry, trouble, reason, cause']
Of course, you can ignore this argument, but the semantic issue is
evident here: *pric^ina cannot be from *pri + *kWei-n(o)
Marius