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

m_iacomi wrote:

>
> 1. The root "*go~sI-" is Proto-Slavic 100%. There is no doubt on
> that. Keep it as a fact. Modern Slavic words prove it.

< snip>

> Even a linguistic outsider shouldn't hesitate too much before
> making a clear choice between these two possibilities. As you have
> already noticed, specialists have chosen the first.
>
> Marius Iacomi

The night is a good advicer. I utterly agree with you.
It is more easy to see it as a loan from Bulgarian as traying to explain
it trough an onomatopeas as hâs-.
The construction of other words which are deriving from the onomatopeas
I mentioned in the previous mail have an another constructin, there is
no one, but absolutely none which is constructed with "ka" at the end.

As for Piotr statement:

> I get the general idea: you're trying your usual naive diversionary
> tactics, putting up more and more red herrings in order to avoid
> admitting that you're wrong.

No Piotr, there is no tactic, but just my legitime try to see if I can
analise the word trough my mother language and nothing else. How I said
at the begining, after a night of thinking I agree with you. The word is
Bulgarian.

Alex