--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- 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"?
I don't know...maybe because that concept wasn't 'so fundamental'
for them as you think (this is a joke, George)
> 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?
Now seriously:
It's simple: because the meaning 'cause' is a later generalization
(any generalization arrived 'later', George) => the initial meaning
is "problem, issue, dispute, trouble, inquiry" from the original
meaning PIE *prek'- 'to ask, to request' (and not 'to arrange')
Some additional Notes (not linked with the topic):
a) I will exclude from your 'assertions' the paragraph with 'that
powerfull neighbours' ...and of course, 'the less powerfull ones',
isn't it, George? => So George you weren't quite 'a democrat' when
you make that assertion?
[Daniel, David where you are now? 'Please help' and do not allow
such 'fundamentalist reactions' -> or you usually made 'some pre-
selections' before to react? ]
b) However even taking your 'non-democratic-context' into account =>
if you quote here Sarmatians, Goths etc...'as more powerfull
nations' than the 'Roman Empire' for sure you have some additional
problems...
c)Regarding the "borrowing theory" that you have tried to propagate
above, please read some books first, to see that the borrowing
processes have no link with your supposed criteria "powerfull/less
powerfull" etc...
> Why did they wait until
> they came upon PRomanian "pricina" (and not even
> "causa" when Latin was still prestigious in
> Constantinople)?
George, once for ever: PRomanian === EQUAL === Balkan Latin < LATIN
It's strange that in your head you have two peoples/two languages
PRomanian/Balkan Romans versus PRomanian/Balkan Latin (I hope that
their isn't today 'another' 'Moscow school' that propagate this).
Please take an elementary linguistic book and learn from there:
"PRomanian === EQUAL === Balkan Latin" => there wasn't ANY OTHER
LATINITY IN BALKANS OUTSIDE THE PROMANIANS. Please unify in your
head these two concepts.
> Your contention just makes no sense
> at all. But the idea that "prycyna" was an internal
> Slavic formation, and a very ancient one, does.
Based on what, Goerge?
Based on 'your preference'?
Or based on: 'at' + 'cause' ='cause' etymology from an 'to make'
< 'to arrange' verb?
Please clarify.
Marius