> [mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of alexandru_mg3
> 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.
Of course not. Slavic has lots of words coined in the Balto-Slavic,
Proto-Slavic and Common Slavic period by productive patterns. "Native"
doesn't mean "inherited directly from PIE", does it?
> 'at ' + 'arrang-'ed'
Nearly in all Slavic languages the reflexes of *c^initi mean 'make'. It's
hard to believe all those languages developed this meaning independently in
a short period -- the meaning must have already been presented in
Proto-Slavic. There's no semantic problem with the word *pric^ina if it was
coined in Proto-Slavic; it doesn't even take *pri 'at, to etc.' (from
pre-Slavic *prei, not *pri, BTW) to trigger the semantic development 'make'
-> 'cause' ('make to' with *pri-), since the latter meaning actually resides
in the first already.
Alternatively, it could indeed be a late (i.e. invented at the time the
meaning 'make' was fully established) learned formation, as Willem suggests.
> 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']
AFAIK, 'inquiry' is a possible Romanian meaning of the word, but not a
Slavic one.
Sergei