From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 43744
Date: 2006-03-09
>Brian please ask George too.
> 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
>