Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/-lós
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Victar in topic -lus ?
@Victar, do you not think that the Latin diminutive suffix -lus is also from this source (ie, PIE *-lós) ? Thanks! —Lbdñk (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Lbdñk: -lus existed only as a variant to -ulus in certain environments. See
{{R:ine:de Goede:2014|pages=14-15}}. --{{victar|talk}}23:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)- @Victar: Well, in that book I saw the reconstructed form as *lo-. So is *-lós an extension thereof, or that the nominative singular is kept as the canonical form in Wiktionary? Anyways, having read that extended forms of this PIE suffix is much more productive, could it not be possible that Latin -ulus, -olus, -ellus, -illus are all variants of the original -lus, which itself could have been then a direct descendant of the said PIE suffix. Or at least, we need to take those forms into account in the reconstruction... —Lbdñk (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- No. The thematization of PIE suffixes is an common theme throughout PIE descendants. Latin -lus should really just be deleted as all the examples give on that page are actually examples of -ulus and -olus, all originating from a Italic *-elos/*-olos. The only exception to that is when the suffix is added to R-stems, sometimes forming double deminunatives. --
{{victar|talk}}18:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)- @Victar: I was actually, in my question, referring to the ending (ie, -s), and not the theme vowel. —Lbdñk (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- *-lo- is just a declension-less version of *-los. --
{{victar|talk}}21:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- *-lo- is just a declension-less version of *-los. --
- @Victar: I was actually, in my question, referring to the ending (ie, -s), and not the theme vowel. —Lbdñk (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- No. The thematization of PIE suffixes is an common theme throughout PIE descendants. Latin -lus should really just be deleted as all the examples give on that page are actually examples of -ulus and -olus, all originating from a Italic *-elos/*-olos. The only exception to that is when the suffix is added to R-stems, sometimes forming double deminunatives. --
- @Victar: Well, in that book I saw the reconstructed form as *lo-. So is *-lós an extension thereof, or that the nominative singular is kept as the canonical form in Wiktionary? Anyways, having read that extended forms of this PIE suffix is much more productive, could it not be possible that Latin -ulus, -olus, -ellus, -illus are all variants of the original -lus, which itself could have been then a direct descendant of the said PIE suffix. Or at least, we need to take those forms into account in the reconstruction... —Lbdñk (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)