Re: Ex Libris; the book is for

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Pavel A. da Mek" <a.da_mek0@...>
wrote:

> 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)
>
>
> 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?)

May I ask about the reason for the reconstruction of the nominative
marker as *-z? Is this just my theory, or have you have had similar
thoughts yourself? If it is my teaching, I will like to make it
clear that I see no reason to posit *-z for the stage of PIE that we
reconstruct on comparative basis, I merely see a need to derive some
sibilants from *-z at an earlier stage. Do you see a need for a PIE
synchronic phoneme /z/?

Jens