Re: [tied] Re: *kap-

Richard Wordingham wrote:

> Isn't the loss of 'v' in the inflected forms of English _have_
> historically regular? (Conversely, I think the corresponding loss
> of 'v' in Scots _hae_ 'have' is irregular.)

Not entirely regular: OE hæfst, hæfþ, at least, should have kept the
/f/. The preterite plural hæfde/on might have ended up as something like
"haft" (cf. læ:fde > left), but in the latter case the semiregular
alternative outcome for voiced internal /f/ ([-v-]) was deletion, as in
OE he:af(o)d- > head; læ:fdige > EME lhevedi, lafdi > LME lady; OE hafoc

> hawk. Scots <hae> and <gie> 'give' are like old <se(n)night> for

"seven-night" 'week'. Of course the high frequency of "have" and "give"
would have favoured the loss, even though it wasn't restricted to very
frequent words.

Piotr