Re: [tied] *kap-

Grzegorz Jagodzinski wrote:

> Of course you are right, that's why I wrote "as a rule".

Not even "as a rule", since counterexamples are simply too easy to find
and multiply. Slavic <postU> 'fast' is a fairly late WGmc. loan, and yet
we have the Pol. verb <pos'cic'> and adj. <postny> as if their base had
always been there in the language (virtual PSl. *postiti, *postInU).

> Btw. do you know more examples similar to *xopiti - *xapati? I mean lack of
> *j in the frequentative form, cf. c^istiti 'clean' - *-c^istjati (with
> prefixes), xoditi 'go, walk' - *xadjati (Polish <chadzac'> 'walk
> frequently'), lis^iti (<*lixiti) 'deprive' - lis^ati (<*lixjati) etc. So,
> **xapjati would be expected instead of *xapati.

That's precisely why I don't accept the idea that *xapati is the
frequentative of *xopiti. It's an independent stem.

Piotr