Re: Octha or Ohta?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> W dniu 2012-02-08 19:19, stlatos pisze:
>
> > Gmc.
> > *xaizda- = hair
> > vs.
> > *xaizda- = flax fiber / etc.
> >
> > Exactly the same meaning range, but *kays- differs from *kas- in having
> > an entire phoneme added WITHIN the word, not just a possible k vs kY
> > (considering all the apparently irregular changes among them in families
> > that differentiate them).
>
> Except that the Gmc. word is actually *xazDa-/*xezDa(n)- in both
> meanings (ON haddr 'long hair', OE pl. heordan 'hards of flax', etc.).

That's my point. I meant to write:

Gmc.
*xazda- \ *xezda- = hair
vs.
*xaizda- \ *xizda- = flax fiber / etc. (heide (f) MLG;)

eq. to all the rest of my examples (-y- vs. -0-). They were so close I forgot which was which before finishing, doubling up. Since e>i in Gmc, they seem even closer to surface analysis.

> Cf. *xe:ra- 'hair', which in my opinion reflects *kes-ró-:
>
> http://hdl.handle.net/10593/1990
>
> > Yes; that's my point: he's wrong in exactly the way you are wrong, just
> > more obviously so to you since you are incapable of seeing your mistakes.
>
> No-one ever proposed that *deik^- and *deig^- had different meanings.
> They were variously (and implausibly) treated as dialectal variants,
> different suffixations etc., but not as different roots.

Which is why you shouldn't treat these (kas-, etc.) as dif. roots. It's the same w L digitus; why is anyone trying to find an IE root w -g- for it? If it's related to 10, there's already unexpl. k>g in L -gint-, etc.; if it's related to point, find the common or analogous reason for k>g. In this exact way should all we've discussed be treated.

> *kes- and
> *k^es- have different meanings and different conotations (*kes- may also
> mean 'tidy up, arrange', and *k^es- 'destroy, kill'). If everyone but
> you treats them as different rooots, it's for a variety of reasons, not
> just because they are hard to connect formally.
>

If words looking slightly dif. w slightly dif. meanings were never connected, we wouldn't have modern linguistics.