1. It is not clear to me how to advance "real evidence" for something that is manifestly self evident.
2. There is, indeed, only a "vague phonetic similarity" for PAQAX, PATAX, PALAX, and PACAX, yet they are all 'cleave, open, separate'. Isaac Fried, Boston University On Apr 22, 2012, at 10:21 PM, Will Parsons wrote: > >> I think we can then go even deeper into this linguistic gestalt by >> recognizing, as Isaac Fried did, that "The root PTX is apparently a >> variant of . . . PSG, PSX, PCX, P$X, P$Q, (PSQ), PTX with acts >> connoting 'spread'. > > I'd like to have more real evidence that these are related than a > vague > phonetic similarity. > _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
