Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/ǵʰésōr

*ǵʰésōr

@Victar: I created this page based on Kloekhorst, but now that I see it again, the reconstructions seems a little awkward. It's irregularly reconstructed without a nom.sg *-s, when this is supposedly a feminine noun. Besides the fact that the zero grade in the suffix for an animate noun is irregular. I'd move it to *ǵʰésōr. Plus, the only compelling objection Kloekhorst offers against *ǵʰésōr is that the "*r" must be adjacent to the "*s" for it to be geminated in Hitt. kiššar. However, it could have been analogical to the weak stems in *ǵʰsr-. In fact, Kloekhorst's reconstruction requires analogy as well in the acc.sg *ǵʰsérm > kiššeran. What do you think? --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 16:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this entry hurts my brain. I wouldn't move it to a collective entry. Let me get back to you. --Victar (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Victar: No, not collective. Collectives are exclusive to neuter nouns. This is instead an animate amphikinetic noun, like *swésōr, *dʰéǵʰōm, *ǵénh₁tōr, or *h₃érō. —Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 11:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

*ǵʰer- "take"

Latin hir might be from this root instead?

*ǵʰer-ōr seems equally valid.

*ǵʰes- and *ǵʰer- both meaning "take" have very similar shapes, could be related if anything but I dont have any source on that. Ronaldo sewie (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)