Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/wĺ̥kʷos

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Appendix talk:Proto-Indo-European *wĺ̥kʷos)
Latest comment: 10 months ago by Lëtzelúcia in topic *wĺ̥kʷead?
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Appendix:Proto-Indo-European *wĺ̥kʷos

[edit]

Should Armenian descendant գայլ (gayl) be here, or it belongs under wĺ̥pos with its own prospective appendix? --Vahagn Petrosyan 02:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would create Appendix:Proto-Indo-European *wĺ̥pos as a redirect to Appendix:Proto-Indo-European *wĺ̥kʷos. We of course want the correct form in the Armenian ety, and yet it's nice to have everything link to the same page, so that the variants can be discussed in a single place. Fortunately, Ivan is clever enough to have already noted wĺ̥pos. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK then, I created a redirect. If needed, one can always elaborate Appendix:Proto-Indo-European *wĺ̥pos to list Armenian and Hittite descendants there. --Vahagn Petrosyan 21:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

She-wolf

[edit]

Should the feminine derivation be listed as a PIE formation? Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic and Germanic all attest the formation (see EIEC). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Useful Sources

[edit]

Would entries from other Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series be useful? I can supply the Proto-Germanic and Proto-Italic at least. Qovqa (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Etymology

[edit]

Could it come from the PIE predecessor of Proto-Balto-Slavic *wilktei / *welktei (to drag) (from where Lithuanian vilkti, 1st person sg. velku, vilkt, 1st person sg. velku), i.e. something like Proto-Indo-European *wl̥kti / *welkti? Compare Proto-Balto-Slavic *wilktei / *welktei (to drag) and Proto-Balto-Slavic *wilkás (wolf). So *wĺ̥kʷos could mean "one who drags (prey)". @Gnosandes: Thoughts? Ентусиастъ (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ентусиастъ: Hi. I never received the notification. You will probably need to explain the difference in *kʷ~k (and *h₂?). Although, for example, the valencies are the same. But I do not believe that the form *wĺ̥kʷos existed, for the valence of the thematic vowel is different. And the "imaginary" Balto-Slavic accent is primary. The form *wl̥kʷíh₂s directly indicates recessivity. You'd better ask user:Victar, I'm not an Indo-European linguist. Gnosandes (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I came here to suggest just the same as Ентусиастъ, having arrived there from волочь. A "skulking danger", similar to snake's and smok's semantic "slimy" field.

Zezen (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Zezen Yep, that's a good example. Ентусиастъ (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

*wĺ̥kʷead?

[edit]

This ablative seems problematic, both *a and *ā are late PIE phone(me)s, cf Kloekhorst, Alwin. “Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon.” (2007)., Pooth, Roland. “Proto-Indo-European verb morphology. Part 1. Inflection.” Language arts 2 (2016): 1-34. and Kapović, Mate. ”The Indo-European Languages.“ (2019). Lëtzelúcia (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply