From: george knysh
Message: 43746
Date: 2006-03-09
> --- 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
> > >
> >
>
> > >****GK: This must be "Dacian" logic.(:=)) I don't get
> > > 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')
>*****GK: More "Dacian" logic? (:=)))*****
>
> 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...
>****GK: Well now, as far as I can tell "pricina"
>
> 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.
>****GK: Impossible, Marius. I have no "Dacian"
>
> > 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.