Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word
Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/wĺ̥kʷos. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/wĺ̥kʷos, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/wĺ̥kʷos in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/wĺ̥kʷos you have here. The definition of the word
Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/wĺ̥kʷos will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/wĺ̥kʷos, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
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
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
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
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
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