--- alexandru_mg3 <
alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>
> II) A Slavic-internal formation is still a biz(z)are
> 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)
****GK: If a term can be understood to be the outcome
of an internal development, the "possibility" of a
loan becomes utterly remote.******
Now let me ask you this: why do you suppose Slavs had
to "borrow" a foreign concept as fundamental as
"cause"? How did they express this concept prior to
their advent into the Balkans? On the totally
incredible assumption that they had no such concept of
their own before the 6th century AD, why would they
not have borrowed it from the language of other
powerful neighbours such as the Sarmatians or the
Goths? Or even the Greeks? Why did they wait until
they came upon PRomanian "pricina" (and not even
"causa" when Latin was still prestigious in
Constantinople)? Your contention just makes no sense
at all. But the idea that "prycyna" was an internal
Slavic formation, and a very ancient one, does.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com