--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@..., "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> > Falk & Torp continue:
> > IE root *veg^- in Greek hugrós "humid, fluid", Lat.

uvidus "humid,

> > wet", Old Irish fúal "urine" (from *voglo-). Extended root *vegs,
> > *ugs: see ox.
> > I assumed /g^/, not /g'/, on no grounds whatsover; Falk & Torp
> supply
> > no satem cognates.
>
> Latin u:vidus certainly doesn't derive from *weg^-. If it belongs
> together with Gk. hygros and ON vökr 'wet' at all, this 'wet' root
> must be reconstructed as *wegW-. Some authors would adduce Lat. (h)
> u:mor, (h)u:midus < *ugW-sm-... .
>
> As for the rest, the American Heritage separates *weg^- 'be
> strong/lively' (vigil, velocity, vegetable, watch, wake, witch,

vajra

> [satem!] ...) from *h2aug^-/*h2weg^- 'increase' (eke, augment,
> auxiliary, to wax, ...), and the EIEC does the same; however, a
> connection seems likely to me.
>
> The 'ox, bull' word is either *ukWs-en- or *uks-en-; in either case
> the *k(W) might result from the devoicing of *g(W). *k^ (or *g^) is
> ruled out by Iranian evidence (Av. uxs^an-, not *us^an-).
>
> *g^ and *g' are alternative notations for the same phoneme, aren't
> they?
>

Oops. I thought they were used for g2 and g1, respectively. How do
you designate the two non-rounded (W) series? g for 2, g' and g^ for
1?

> Piotr

Torsten