Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/wóḱs

RFD discussion: August–October 2018
I tried my best to clean this up, but I think should probably be deleted because there is no solid PIE root for it, and PBS and PGmc forms look to derive from different nouns. --Victar (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC) "The case of Lith. vãškas, OCS voskъ, OHG wahs… is illustrative. Stang argues that the traditional explanation of Balto-Slavic *vaškas as metathesized from *woḱso- is unacceptable because *ḱs would have given Lith. š, Sl. s (…), while a pre-form *wosko- (< *wosḱo-) would not explain the š of Lith. vãškas. Kortlandt (1979, 59) reconstructs *woḱsko-, dissimilated to *woško- in Balto-Slavic and to *wokso- in Germanic. However, I am not aware of any independent evidence assuring that we are dealing with a palatal *ḱs. Both metathesis from *wokso‑ and Kortlandt’s *woḱsko- (or *woksko-) would thus explain the š of Lith. vãškas."
 * I think there are actually three satisfying reconstructions, see (quote above). Ain92 (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)