Reconstruction talk:Proto-Finnic/anodak
We've been so far creating PF verb-forming suffixes under e.g. Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "fiu-fin-pro" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E., Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "fiu-fin-pro" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E., Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "fiu-fin-pro" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E., Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "fiu-fin-pro" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. (i.e. lemmatized the same way as full-blown verbs: with the infinitive suffix), so that suggests we should continue the same notation for suffix categories.
I do not oppose (and even, am mildly in support) of switching to bare-stem notation wholesale, but that should also go wider than just for suffixes. --Tropylium (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- But is Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "fiu-fin-pro" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. a reconstructable word in Proto-Finnic, with descendants? Otherwise, the formation happened in Pre-Finnic and we don't have to use Proto-Finnic notation necessarily. —CodeCat 16:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is not, but I don't see the relevance; this verb synchronically regardless contains the suffix *-odak. --Tropylium (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)