Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/snewbʰ-

Latin forms

@Victar: Thank you for cleaning up the entry. I'm a bit confused about the purpose of the "(see there for further descendants)" in the Latin verb. There appear to be no direct descendants of the present-stem verb in Romance. Is that meant to point to Latin innubus, prōnuba, cōnū̆bium? Given the short vowel that seems definitely attested for the first two, and has been argued to be attested for the third, they seem to be zero-grade forms, so I'm not sure it's accurate to treat them as originally being formed from nūbō itself rather than the overall root. Urszag (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing. The template {{see desc}} is meant to used to point the reader to both the descendants and derived terms sections on that entry. Latin innubus and prōnuba are considered to be irregular shortenings, perhaps under the influence of the perfect passive participle, but derived from nūbō. See {{R:la:EM|nūbō|796}}. I don't really have any thoughts beyond that -- maybe you can bring it up over at WT:ES. --{{victar|talk}} 05:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)