Re: husk

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...>

wrote:

>
>>> And now you are making again a deliberated (?) confusion

between

>>> interjection "huSti" and huSte/huSti?
>>
>> I pointed out that "huSti" means something else than you

claim.

>> There is no confusion from my part. There is no "huSte/huSti"

in

>> the dictionary thus you should not refer to it.
>
> I guess you are not seriously meaning it. [...]
> Speaking specialy about "huSti" you make stronger the

convinction

> I had that you have been not aware of the meaning of the word.

The

> form given by DEX is just one considered "today" the correct

one,

> the form "huSti" is the word I learned and I use.

Your convictions are of no special interest. Summing up, in the
dictionary you find:
1. "huscã", plural "huSti" < Ukr. "huska" (`salt`)
2. "huSte" (only plural) < Ukr. "husca" (`husk`)
3. "huSti" (interjection)
You started the debate with "huSti" and Ukrainian "huska", that
is you could heve referred _only_ to 1. It is obvious that you
took
"huska" not from your mind but from the DEX at the first entry.
The rest is you not being able to cope properly with
dictionnaries.
Still no surprise.
Of course, processes in your mind should not make the object of
debate on this list; on another hand it would be nice for you to
learn finally some rigor in your approach. Repeating this claim
for a reasonable number of times could bring some results (sigh!).

Marius Iacomi