Re[2]: [tied] PIE prek'- ; prok' ; prk'- 'to ask'

At 8:27:13 PM on Wednesday, March 8, 2006, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
> wrote:

>> At 8:10:54 PM on Wednesday, March 8, 2006, alexandru_mg3
>> wrote:

>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@>
>>> wrote:

[...]

>>>> ****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?

>>> Now seriously:

>>> It's simple: because the meaning 'cause' is a later
>>> generalization (any generalization arrived 'later',

>> This misses George's point completely. If the Slavs already
>> had a word meaning 'cause', what was it, and why did they
>> borrow another after they got to the Balkans? You surely
>> don't seriously want to maintain that they had no word for
>> it before then, do you?

>> [...]

>>> 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?

>> No, it isn't: George said nothing about *more* or *less*
>> powerful neighbors. In fact, his phrase 'other powerful
>> neighbors' actually implies that your preferred source was
>> *also* powerful.

>> And if you ignore this paragraph, you are ignoring an
>> important argument against your preferred scenario.

>> [...]

>>> 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...

>> He didn't say that, either.

> Please read again.

No, YOU read it again. And again, and again, and again, if
necessary, until you read what George actually said instead
of what you falsely imagine that he said. What he wrote is
very clear, and very clearly not what you quoted him as
saying. If you believe otherwise, please show us exactly
where George said anything about 'less powerful[l]
neighbours' and where he said that the Sarmatians and Goths
were more powerful than the Roman Empire.

Brian