Re: *kap-

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz Jagodzinski"
<grzegorj2000@...> wrote:

> And notice that verbs meaning "have" change irregularily because
> of frequency and it is a LAW, not a coincidence. E.g. Polish miec'

instead

> of imiec', Italian ho < habeo, Eng. has, had with no -v- etc.

Isn't the loss of 'v' in the inflected forms of English _have_
historically regular? (Conversely, I think the corresponding loss
of 'v' in Scots _hae_ 'have' is irregular.)

Richard.