--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- 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.*****
>
a) GK, first I didn't offense you in any way (the usage of 'mad'
word there is a very bad point for 'your image' on this forum not for
me. But please at least to follow the guidelines of this forum. If
your have already a conclusion and you think taht you don't need to
find out soemthing more please skip this thread
b) in Place to make some general appreciation 'volume of Slavic words
in Romanian' , 'volume the *pri derivations in Slavic' (note that the
statistics are not helpful when we talk about a Single Word) is
better to follow-up a little bit where this topic
currently 'arrived'=> because there were some good advancement due to
Sergei, Willem, Petusek etc...(I will exclude myself not to create
another 'pricinã' here)
So I will resume here for you the main conclusions (in case that ypou
couldn't detect them yet) to see that this discussion wasn't 'for
nothing' as you suggest here:
a) pric^ina is 'a recent' Slavic formation (if it is a Slavic one)
because cannot be constructed as *'pri-' + *kWei - no based on its
original and current meaning
b) being a recent formation it remains to say something about the
probable place and time where this word apperaed or was formed: based
on some good postings here (see Willem) the probability 'to appear'
FIRST in OCS times and next to be diffused in the pan-Slavic World
via the Slavonic Church is the most probable path to follow
c) So the word appears in Balkans and is either an OCS internal
formation or (why not?) a loan in OCS
d) if it is a loan we have here 'a confusion' between Sl. *c^initi <
PIE *kWei-n- 'to arrange' -> 'to arrange, to build, to make, to carry
out' and pric^-ina 'reason, cause, motive, trouble, inquiry
etc...that could well be source from another PIE root *prk'-no
I think that everybody here (despite different posting 'tones'):
Sergei, Willem, Petusek, I etc...'somehow' have already agreed until
now on the points a) and b).
Currently the discussion arrived on the point c) is an OCS internal
formation or an OCS loan
Marius