Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/pelva

I'm confused. Is there a connection between this word and *polvъ? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Per utramque cavernam: I've been looking recently at the remnants of Caland system in Slavic and it appears that the reanalysis of original substantive adjectives into nouns was a productive process even back in proto-Indo-European. For example, *griva (“mane”) < Balto-Slavic *grī́ˀwāˀ < Indo-European *gʷriHweh₂ has an exact parallel in Sanskrit ग्रीवा (grīvā́, “neck”), which proves that it has been established as a noun long ago. Therefore, it is plausible that *pelva and *polvъ are indeed related. After all, when grass or herbage dries out (turning in this way into chaff), its colour fades away. So, on top of the morphological relation, there is also credible semantic link between the two etymons. It only remains as a question why the two forms have different ablaut grades. Bezimenen (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)