Re: Ex Libris; the book is for

> Such translation of modern terms as "book"
> is rather conlanging than serious reconstruction,
> but my attempt is this:
>
> ex < PIE. eg^hs
> the < m. soz, f. seH2, n. tod
> is < PIE. H1essi
> for < PIE. pr
>
> book < Gmc. bo:ks, pl. bo:kiz (Goth. bo:ka, pl. bo:ko:s)
> (derived from "beech" < Gmc f. bo:kjo:n,
> Gmc. f. bo:ko:,
> PIE. bheH2g-o-z)
>
> I am not sure how to extrapolate these Gmc. forms to PIE.;
> knows somebody some on-line overwiew of PIE. > Gmc. evolution?
>
> athematic bheH2g-z, pl. bheH2g-es
> (Would this give Gmc. bo:ks, pl. bo:kiz?)
>
> thematic bheH2g-o-z, pl. bheH2g-o-es
> (Would this give Goth. bo:ka, pl. bo:ko:s?)
>
> f. bheH2g-eH2, pl. bheH2g-eh2-es
> (Would this give Gmc. bo:ko:?)
>
> German <das Buch> is neuter,
> so I would expect rather n. bheH2g-o-m, pl. bheH2g-e-H2
>
> And if Greek <pha:gós> is translated as "edible oak",
> is <bha:g-o-> related to <bhag-> "share; eat; God"?
> And if the <bhag-> has the short vowel, means it that it is from

bhH2eg-?

>
> P.A.

I know I exaggerated on how advanced we were. Still, considering what
we know about the Proto-Indo-Europeans, even over thousands of years,
it's quite incredible. And while the pronunciation may not be
certain, would what we've reconstrusted be intelligible with the Indo-
European Kurgans before the major splits (but after Anatolian
seperated)?

Er, technically, I meant "this book is for (my name)." Would there be
any affixes to names? Thus: "[This] [book/record/anything akin to a
written record] H1essi pr C. Darwin Goranson[affix?]."

And to bring up annother nagging question: why is there no "f"
nor "v" in PIE?