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

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 12:37 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: husk
>
>
>> 1. "huscã", plural "huSti" < Ukr. "huska" (`salt`)
>
> I haven't looked up its etymology, but (assuming that the Ukrainian
> word is cited correctly) I'd be surprised if it represented anything
> else than a figurative use of homonymous <huska> 'little goose' (the
> diminutive of <hus'> < *go~sI).

> Piotr

I ask myself if in fact this alternation "g" versus "h" and "k" versus
"h" shouldn't be in fact an older group "gh","kh" where the languages
preserved the "k" or "g" of "kh/gh" or they preserved the "h" from these
"kh/gh" pretty depending on the phonological context or the simply
habbit. If for "gh" it seems it should be true, for "kh" there is almost
nothing in Pokorny .. Did he has had any special reason for konsidering
the "kh" as not being so present as "gh" in the IE ?

Alex