From: Grzegorz Jagodzinski
Message: 40927
Date: 2005-09-30
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz Jagodzinski"Of course it is not! How many verbs with such a loss are there?
> <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.