Re: [tied]Slavic *go~sI( it was Re: husk)

18-10-03 23:00, alex wrote:

> 1) for the root:
> I tried to analise it trough "hâs-" (<*gâs).

Please don't analise geese. Your spelling suggests something indecent.

> The basis thoughts here
> have been all the
> onomatopea which are constructed after the same model like:
> bâz-,fâs-, hâs-, pâs-, sâs-,hâs-, mâr-, hâr-,zâng-, zâz- ,
> hâts-,bâj-,bâlb-, etc. all presenting there an "CâC"
> I guess you can get the idea, should I develop?

I get the general idea: you're trying your usual naive diversionary
tactics, putting up more and more red herrings in order to avoid
admitting that you're wrong.

> 2)for suffix: there is leoarca, zganca, brânca, nãpârca etc where "ca"
> has nothing to do with the Slavic suffix even if there is an "Cca"

But as opposed to <nãpârcã> & Co., <gâscã> has an impeccable Slavic
derivation, and it clearly belongs with the host of Slavic loans that
Marius brought to your attention. We don't know whether "substrate"
words in <-cã> are suffixations, while we can be certain that <gâscã>
_is_ a diminutive.

> 3) if this is a loan from any Slavic dialect, this should be a very
> strange one since -so far I remember- there is an Slavic "Cru-" which
> yelded Rom. "CâC"

What in heaven's name are you talking about? -- No, don't explain. Let's
finish this silly thread.

Piotr