From: dgkilday57
Message: 70183
Date: 2012-10-12
>*vels > vi:s ... you wish! This has a different root and different formation. See OL vois, and cf. vi:num < OL *voinom < Doric woinon.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> >
> > In Irene Balles' etymology they can be analyzed as related but different
> > compounds:
> > *h1sh2n-h1gw-n > sanguen
> > *h1sh2n-h1gw-i-s > sanguis
> >
> L sangui:s has a long -i:- in the nom., so that doesn't work. Compare *welt > vult, *vels > vi:s. The -gw- should obviously be from IE gW since Sanskrit had -k. There are also many other problems with the above.