--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- alexandru_mg3 <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> > > > a) pric^ina is 'a recent' Slavic formation (if
> > it is
> > > > a Slavic one)
> > >
> > > GK: And why shouldn't it be?
> >
> > Please review the postings
>
> *****GK: That's your task actually. The ones that
> don't agree with your view. It's all there. *****
>
George, Ok: I will repeat again for you, what are the arguments,
against 'your preference': I hope at least that you will read the
the explanation:
I) A Slavic derivation from PIE would have a bizare meaning
------------------------------------------------------------
PIE kWei- 'to arrange' > PIE *prei + *kWei -no > 'at' 'arrang-"ed"
(sic!)
So Slavic pric^ina, if from Slavic, is not a PIE Formation BUT a
later one.
II) A Slavic-internal formation is still a bizare one
------------------------------------------------------
Being for sure now, a later formation could be : an internal one or
a loan *=> you need to accept at least the possibility to be a loan
once it couldn't be derived directly from PIE)
Now even as 'a later internal Slavic formation' I cannot see any
reason to be formed like this: Slavic prefix *pri 'at' in front
of 'to make' in order to obtain 'pric^ina' with its main Slavic
meaning 'cause' (sic!)
So after abandoning 'at' + 'arrang-'ed' "solution" 'they' proposed
here the following etymology:
'at' + 'make' => 'cause' => If this will seem Ok, for a normal
person, sorry!!! I'm the mad-man in that case (as you already told
me in 'that good joke')
Finally, viewing this issue, Sergei came back saying that the
right 'internal-formation' from an etymological point of view was
directly :
'at + 'cause' = 'cause' (it's simple, isn't it?)
He said this, by considering that the Common-Slavic verb c^initi
already has the meaning 'to cause' in the Common-Slavic times based
on his 'English-Russian' dictionary. All this because he wanted to
ensure that pric^ina was there at least in Common Slavic Times (at
least 'from therte' if he couldn't sustain its perenity directly
from PIE)
Even so :), the 'Slavic funs here' really don't want to point out
that the supposed added prefix *pri in pric^ina served 'finally' to
nothing 'at' + 'to cause' = 'to cause' next a deverbative 'cause =>
so finally they have proposed us that *pri- was added to the Slavic
verb c^initi => 'only to be there' => 'at' the right place for their
etymology...
IV) Some problems with the Russian accent were 'quickly solved'
-----------------------------------------------------------
There were also some accentual problems but was 'quickly solved'
with some very allambicated sollutions (Moscow School) where
the-accent-pattern = is-function-of (the-type-of-prefix, the-type-
of-the-stem etc...)
=> with 'these kind of 'very' detailed rules' finally 'one-case-
oner-rule' you can 'easy' explain 'anything from PIE'
III) However 'the preference' remained ...
------------------------------------------
Other rational proposals (see Willem's one) that see
pric^ina 'formed' in OCS times and diffused in pan-Slavic world via
the Slavonic Church => 'weren't selected among the preferences' of
the 'Some others Slavic funs'
IV) A Romanian Substratum(=Dacian/PAlb) derivation raised no problem
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PIE prek'- 'to ask' > PIE *prk'-(i)no > Rom. pric^inã 'trouble,
problem, inquiry, reason'
PIE prek'- 'to ask' > *prk'-yo > Rom. pric^i ~ pric^e 'dispute'
Marius
NOTE: As Alex said, also a Latin form 'per qwe' would give in
Romanian price without any phonetical problem (see Latin percepere
that gave in Romanian pricepe/re.