--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>Not if the vocalisation of */wRC-/ as *uRC- was possible in the ancestor
> of Celtic, as it probably was: cf. OIr. torc (gen. tuirc), MWel. twrch
> 'wild boar' < PCelt. *turkos < *twr.k^os -- a neat parallel to OIr olc,
> gen. uilc, if derived from *ulkWos < *wl.kWos .
the very next paragraph of the article begins, "_Olc_ only becomes a
viable outcome of _*wlkWos_ or _*lúkWos_ if this can be plausibly
transformed into _*ulkWos_ at some imtermediate stage in the
prehistory of Irish." much of the rest of the article is spent
exploring the plausibility of that, which is why i referred (and
defer) to it. i will say, though, that he ultimately does accept the
likelihood of that derivation (as for instance, "For present purposes
it must suffice that OIr. _olann_ < _*wlHneH2_ offers serious support
for a derivation of OIr. _olc_ < _*wlkWos_, however obscure the
precise details may be." p.175)
c. vermeers