--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> *vels > vi:s ... you wish! This has a different root and different formation. See OL vois, and cf. vi:num < OL *voinom < Doric woinon.
>
> DGK
You should read something from w/in the last 20 years; there was no such word as OL vois.
Since L vel < *well is necessary (no eL > oL) and the cluster ls > ll, an older meaning 'you wish' for * well < * wels < * weLs is likely. This form, preserved with one meaning outside of its older grammatical context, came from the verb but within the paradigm the 2s itself, unlike all others at the time, wouldn't end in -s. Analogy changed it like:
vi:s < * weys < * wels < * wel+s < * wel < * well < * wels < * weLs
Since l and L existed, usually with li, a (more ?) palatal l > y (opp. to more common L > w) could occur in some env., possibly including:
pelex \ pellex \ paelex L; pállax G;
in add. to L sangui:s and vi:s .