Re: [tied] PIE prek'- ; prok' ; prk'- 'to ask'

--- Sergejus Tarasovas <S.Tarasovas@...>
wrote:

> I didn't write it's inherited from PIE. By "< PIE
> *kWei-n-" I meant the PIE
> etymon of the Common Slaivc *c^initi 'arrange; make,
> carry out'. "*pri 'at'"
> should read "Common Slavic *pri 'at'", as is clear
> from the context. "from
> *pri + *c^initi" means more or less "was formed in
> Common (or Proto-)Slavic
> from the lexical elements *pri and *c^initi".
>
> > It's strange also for me that you didn't stop at
> least 1-minute on a
> > possible derivation :
> >
> > PIE *prk'-no 'request, demand, raised issue' >
> Romanian(Substratum)
> > pricina => that maybe didn't happen (we will never
> know) but at least
> > is 100% accurate both phonetical as from a
> semantical point of view
>
> Because I'm not in a position to evaluate it --
> Dacian philology is out of
> my competence. The semantic development 'request' ->
> 'cause' is something to
> which I can't find a parallel off hand, though.
>
> Sergei

*****GK: Sergei's basic point is so clear that anyone
questioning it might be suspected of being
"prychynnyj/-a" (:=))) (Ukr. "mad". There is a famous
Shevchenko poem so entitled "Prychynna" ("The
madwoman"). But seriously, the productivity of "pri-"
in Slavic languages is so enormous that this is always
where one has to start in the matter of such words,
before looking for PIE inheritances. As for the
Romanian word, the probability that it is a Slavic
loan (of uncertain time frame) is rather good (given
the huge Slavic baggage in Romanian, not all of it
"Balkanic" by any stretch of the imagination). Much
better than the unrelenting, and not very productive,
search for alleged Dacian sources.*****


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com