tgpedersen wrote:
> Thank you for the clarification. Could you clarify further: do you
> believe the words you refer to are misplaced Germanic words that
> just happen to be hapax'es in Germanic or are they non-Germanic IE?
A hapax is a word recorded only once in a given language, so they are
not hapaxes in the sense normally given to the word. I assume you are
asking if they're isolated, i.e. have no exact cognates outside
Germanic. Yes, some of them (not all) belong to this category, while
some do have close-matching cognates elsewhere. But it's quite normal,
in any IE branch, to find a word consisting of an IE root plus a
productive IE suffix, while the particular combination of both is unique
to the branch in question. Either because the word has been coined in
that branch (using the inherited mechanism of word-formation), or
because it has been lost elsewhere. At any rate there is nothing "alien"
(non-IE) about the words I cited, since they are composed entirely of IE
morphemes, and most importantly their derivational base is a clearly
recognisable IE root.
Piotr