From: Torsten
Message: 68519
Date: 2012-02-09
>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/68503?var=0&l=1
> W dniu 2012-02-08 19:19, stlatos pisze:
>
> > Gmc.
> > *xaizda- = hair
> > vs.
> > *xaizda- = flax fiber / etc.
> >
> > Exactly the same meaning range, but *kays- differs from *kas- in
> > having an entire phoneme added WITHIN the word, not just a
> > possible k vs kY (considering all the apparently irregular changes
> > among them in families that differentiate them).
>
> Except that the Gmc. word is actually *xazDa-/*xezDa(n)- in both
> meanings (ON haddr 'long hair', OE pl. heordan 'hards of flax',
> etc.).
> Cf. *xe:ra- 'hair', which in my opinion reflects *kes-r�-:
>
> http://hdl.handle.net/10593/1990
>
> > Yes; that's my point: he's wrong in exactly the way you are wrong,
> > just more obviously so to you since you are incapable of seeing
> > your mistakes.
>
> No-one ever proposed that *deik^- and *deig^- had different
> meanings. They were variously (and implausibly) treated as dialectal
> variants, different suffixations etc., but not as different roots.
> *kes- and *k^es- have different meanings and different conotations
> (*kes- may also mean 'tidy up, arrange', and *k^es- 'destroy,
> kill'). If everyone but you treats them as different rooots, it's
> for a variety of reasons, not just because they are hard to connect
> formally.
>