{{m|la|adesurio}} and {{m|la|abligurrio}}

Thanks; I need to make some edits then.

Thank you for your help on lectio. Just one question-- are you treating -to and -ito as separate suffixes because they are formed against different stems, and therefore not offering either as a canonical form? This does make sense, especially given the agito exception. To be clear, is it still correct to treat -turio as the canonical form of -urio, for example in esurio, and -sito in haesito as a form of -tito? I misunderstood and assumed you were trying to find a canonical form for -to/-ito as well. I think we were editing at the same time; I hope you know I wasn't trying to engage in an edit fight.

Yes, I'm treating them as separate suffixes, and also -titō. For haesitō, you can think of it this way: Since the supine of haereō is haesum, and we know the ending of the supine is -tum, you can reason that a hypothetical ending -t- alone would give haes- (i.e. removing -um from -tum gives -t-). If you then extend that ending to -titō, it follows that the result must be haesitō. Thus, the first -t- of the ending is "hidden" inside the -s- of the supine. But this doesn't work for agō, because we know that the supine is actum and therefore the endings -tō and -titō would give *actō and *actitō respectively. So the only option is to treat -itō as a separate suffix.

Just to note, though, -itō only applies when -tō clearly doesn't. If we look at habeō, we see the supine is habitum. Applying the rule of removing -um to get the -t- form, we get habit-. We then extend this to -tō to give habitō. So this verb actually has the -tō suffix, not -itō.