Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/ǵʰésōr

*ǵʰésōr

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