As a little side analysis, I was curious to see whether the opening word might confirm the hazelnut theory. To cut to the chase: the result is inconclusive, and only holds true under certain assumptions that have not been confirmed.
First of all, this strange Bank-Gallow construction maybe (!) resembles a capital H:
Bank-Gallow: capital H, followed by o= LSM ("deleted")| d.s | o | o.ch | s
The structure would be (H) | V1 (d.s) | C1 (o) | V2 (o.ch) | C3 (s)
with:
H = h (funny idea)
d.s = a (assumption)
o = zz / s / z (confirmed)
o.ch = e (assumption)
s = L (I don't actually think that's correct, but it may depend on the positioning. )
This would indeed result in “Hazel”; however, everything that follows is generally incompatible with “shrub / tree / nut, etc.”
Too little evidence... but that's quite a funny idea with the "H" - we'll keep it in mind.
First of all, this strange Bank-Gallow construction maybe (!) resembles a capital H:
Bank-Gallow: capital H, followed by o= LSM ("deleted")| d.s | o | o.ch | s
The structure would be (H) | V1 (d.s) | C1 (o) | V2 (o.ch) | C3 (s)
with:
H = h (funny idea)
d.s = a (assumption)
o = zz / s / z (confirmed)
o.ch = e (assumption)
s = L (I don't actually think that's correct, but it may depend on the positioning. )
This would indeed result in “Hazel”; however, everything that follows is generally incompatible with “shrub / tree / nut, etc.”
Too little evidence... but that's quite a funny idea with the "H" - we'll keep it in mind.