> > > *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'
> > must be reconstructed as *wegW-. Some authors would adduce Lat.
> > 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,
> > [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
> > the *k(W) might result from the devoicing of *g(W). *k^ (or *g^)
> > ruled out by Iranian evidence (Av. uxs^an-, not *us^an-).
> > Piotr
So at least /uvidus/ demands a *w-gW-. Which means, for "water, wet"
we have at least