From: stlatos
Message: 70773
Date: 2013-01-22
>Then, if reg., why figgrs Go; fingr ON; finger E; if << 5? Also, *fuNxsti- > fúst OHG; fýst OE; fist E; could be the same. All seems opt., not based on _C or anything else.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" wrote:
> >
> > In my view OE _feolufer_, _filfor_ etc. 'type of marine bird' has nothing to do with ML _porphyrio_, but is based on the disyllabic root for 'ceremonial axe' *pelekW- and formed on the same basis as 'pelican', based on the shape of the bird's bill. This is an example of the labial being more than one syllable away.
>
> Unclear. What I intended is that _feolufer_ etc. represents something like *pelekWro- with a derivational suffix whose consonant occluded the labiovelar. The semantic motivation is then identical to that in Grk. _peleka:n_ 'pelican' from _pelekus_ 'ceremonial axe', but obviously the formations differ in detail.
>