--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> But the Russian <c^inít'> (without pri-) in its Church Slavonic
('make,
> execute; cause' -- vs. genuine 'repair; sharpen') hypostasis is
firmly
> associated with negative phenomena such as reprisal, harm, riot as
> well. Does that mean the verb is borrowed from (Proto-)Romanian?
>
> But the most important fact is that Russ. <c^inít'> means 'cause'
as
> well (c^inít' zlo 'cause harm') -- actually, in my Russian-English
> dictionary <c^inít' 3> is glossed exactly as 'cause'. This is
because --
> as I've already noted -- the notion of 'causation' resides in the
> notion of 'making' itself, so it's not that pri- that makes
(causes)
> *c^initi mean 'cause' -- it can do it on its own.
b) Sergei, please don't use a trick here and post some secondary
meaning of the Russian verb. Please post its main meaning(s) because
a verb could finally have 20 or more different nuances sometimes.
But when is loaned the more used one so the basic one is for sure
loaned.
The Slavic verb mainly means 'to make' from the original PIE 'to
arrange'
Because I don't know Russian please post the full meanings of:
priciniti and ciniti together with some similar deverbatives
construction (for other Russian verbs and the related accentuation)
as you have proposed for pricina
a) NEXT: you finally arrived to tell me that the preffix pri- serve
to nothing in pricina => this is exactly what I told you from the
beginning => that there is no *pri- preffix there only a confusion
based on the fact that the first three sound a pri- too.
So please explain here: What additional meanning add pri- in pricina?
None, as I can see until.
> Do you already have
> an appropriate candidate for the source of that Slavic verb in
> Romanian? ;-)
>
> Sergei
a) I already posted, that I fully agree that c^initi is an
inherited word in Slavic indicating to you Dersken's derivation on
Leiden *kWei-n- 'to arrange'. If necessary I will indicate that
message for you again :)
So c^initi Yes is inherited, but pricinã No => If you came back and
consider pricina inherited => fact that you have denied some
messages ago, I'm very sorry: I was hoping that you have accepted at
least that is a 'later formation' even you still consider it as an
internal pan-Slavic.
Now a second question for you: if it is 'a later' but 'internal
Slavic formation' when&where it appears first on your opinion?
b) regarding Romanian Source for pricinã
PIE 'prek' - to ask => PIE *prk'-no 'request, question, raised item'
=> Romanian pricina 'trouble, problem, reason'
If the source is PIE, what other source you need? Before PIE?
-no => adjectival PIE formation <<Action-X+no>> => means the result
of the Action-X
Romanian-Substratum Rules:
o > a
r. > ri
k'/i > c/i > c^i (only in Daco-Romanian)
Marius