Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/kalw-

RFC discussion: October–November 2017
PIE a. --Barytonesis (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * /a/ was rare but not nonexistent in PIE. There isn't much else that could have given all the attested forms. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , I don't know how to address this RFC, but maybe we can resolve it by citing the reconstruction? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This word/etymon has been a problem for a long time, given the *a vocalism and its proposed descendants.
 * In order to get the sequence -lv- in Latin, you need to have a syncopation of PIt. *-VlVwV-, since PIt. *-lw- regularly yields L -ll-. This means that the PIt. form has to look like *kale/owos. Some have tried to set up forms like PIE *kolHwos, but then you run into a whole bag of worms of whether Saussure's Effect is real (see Nussbaum "The 'Saussure Effect' in Latin and Italic"), and the a vocalism is still problematic. De Vaan on the other hand does something like PIE *kl̥H-e/o-wó-s > PIt. *kale/owos > L, with cognates 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬 < PIE *kl̥H-wó-s. Regardless of whether this etymology is good or whether we believe in PIE *a vocalism, the current reconstruction cannot possibly give 🇨🇬.
 * 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, and 🇨🇬 all seem to point to a different etymon *golH-wo-s, whose initial *g is hard to square with *k.
 * The overall answer is no, there is not way this form can account for pretty much any of the proposed descendants. — JohnC5 10:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)