Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/jьlьmъ
Polish descendants[edit]
Why not to add two Polish attested forms? One of them is (oldish and now little known) “ilm”. See e.g. https://pl.blabto.com/648-planting-and-growing-elm.html (“Wiąz drzewny lub ilm należy do roślin liściastych” = the tree elm or “ilm” belongs to leaf plants), or Brückner’s Polish Etymological Dictionary, under “wiąz” (“wiąz” is the normal term meaning “elm”). “wiąz, albo ‘brzost’, ‘ilm’ (od wiązania, do którego się jego łyko szczególniej nadaje)” (https://pl.wikisource.org/wiki/S%C5%82ownik_etymologiczny_j%C4%99zyka_polskiego/wi%C4%85z). Derksen also quotes Polish “ilm” and Old Polish “ilem”, under “*jьlьmъ”.
The other form, little better known now, is “limak”. Interestingly, the form is neglected by authors of etymological dictionaries, no one knows why. But it is real, and may denote the specific species of elm, Ulmus laevis, see e.g. https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi%C4%85z_szypu%C5%82kowy. Many academic books also use “limak” as a general synonyme of “wiąz” or a synonyme of “wiąz szypułkowy”, like in Wikipedia.
Polish “ilm” and “limak” show the diversity of Slavic forms of the word under question. So, I suggest they should be added to the article.