>No, there's no steady association. Pokorny lists only
> There is a steady association of the segment *k^(h)e- and 'fast'
> in PIE.
> I propose that early PIE words for 'deer', like our 'hind',Why would the sense 'fast' be generalized as 'hornless'?
> contained the segment *k^(h)e- so that *k^em-, 'hornless',
> should be regarded as a generalization of 'hind' rather than
> 'hind' being derived from 'hornless'.
> In my opinion, this presupposes a PIE **k^(h)em-, 'doe'.There's no P.I.E. *e- meaning 'grass', so by what novel
> What application does this have to the present discussion?
> I believe that *ek^(-)wo-s is compounded of of the initial
> segments *e- (cf. *ai-ra:, 'kind of grass'),
> '*grass' + *k^(h)e-, 'deer', so that the compound should haveIf you're going to be allowed to invent your own roots,
> the core meaning of 'grass-deer'.
> If this is true, then it indicates importantly, that PIE'sIt would be a very bad idea to try to build any further
> discovered horses long after they had become familiar with
> A corollary is that the PIE-speaking ethnos could not have
> been situated on the grassy plains of Eurasia originally
> because deer are predominantly forest-dwellers.
> Old habits die hard.So we see.