Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/-ō

n-stem?

Shouldn't this be called an n-stem? It's filed under root nouns now.--95.42.25.28 07:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Second usage

@Caoimhin ceallach, Ancient Greek ἄξων (áxōn) is clearly just a noun deriving another noun, and the etymology for Latin carō is quite uncertain, see EDL:94, but EM also derives it from a noun. Per your edit comment, if you read Lundquist, individualizing/participant nouns is a term that encompasses both agent nouns and instrument nouns, and a millstone is an instrument. --{{victar|talk}} 20:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Victar, regarding ἅξων and carō, I'm referencing Kroonen (2011), supported by De Vaan and Beekes. About EM De Vaan says: "According to EM, the Italic noun would be an n-stem built on a root noun; yet I find no good evidence pointing to a root noun." If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.

I read Lundquist. The section you referenced doesn't mention instrument nouns. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Caoimhin ceallach: See the bottom of section 2.4.2. Participant nominalization, page 2112. You're also ignoring millstone, for some reason, as an example of an instrument noun. And yes, I read Kroonen, where he also includes Ancient Greek ἄκμων (ákmōn), which is derived from *-mō, not *-ō, so obviously not infallible. Ancient Greek ἄξων (áxōn) likely derives from an original s-stem, as as the source of the -s-, and my point about Latin carō is that it's "quite uncertain", so it's a poor example of anything. --{{victar|talk}} 21:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Victar, I see. I think "participant" is a good addition to the entry on your part. They encompass agent, patient and intrument nouns. Some "participant" suffixes derive all three, like English -er, but that isn't necessarily the case. In PIE *-tḗr derived agent nouns and *-trom instrument nouns. It's true that a millstone is an instrument, but ‎*gʷréh₂wō is not an instrument noun. It doesn't mean "instrument for heavy-ing", the way *h₂érh₃trom (“plough”) means "an instrument for ploughing" and *lówh₃trom (“bathtub, soap”) means "an instrument for washing".

You're right that not all of Kroonen's examples are equally good. That why I picked two which were backed by other sources. De Vaan and Beekes derive carō and ἄξων respectively from roots, as does Wiktionary currently. *h₂eḱs- may indeed be an s-stem originally, or it might not. If you have a better account for the *-ō suffix, I'd love to see it, but could you please be constructive? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Victar, actually, thinking about it, maybe you're right. I originally took Kroonen's "plain n-stems" to mean "primary n-stems", but maybe he means "n-stems with an unclear semantic relation to their base", which is also the gist of Stüber: "In this case it is often difficult to recognize a difference in meaning between the base word and its derivative." —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Caoimhin ceallach: What does "a better account for the *-ō suffix" mean? Ancient Greek ἄξων (áxōn) deriving from an original s-stem has wide support, see the sources I added to RC:Proto-Indo-European/h₂eḱs-. You're basing this one usage on Kroonen, which has shown itself faulty and lacks support. Including it would be an imprudent over-endorsement with zero benefit to the reader or the quality of the article. --{{victar|talk}} 00:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Arguing with you is bizarre. Did you not see what I wrote? I said you were right and changed the formulation. It no longer matters whether *h₂eḱs- is a root noun or an s-stem.

Regarding your other point, Kroonen and Stüber, likely the pre-eminent experts on Indo-European n-stems, agree that there was a small, but undeniable group of amphikinetic n-stems which can't be considered "individualizing" or "participant". Who are we doing a disservice by conveying that? You're welcome to disagree, but the onus is on you to provide evidence. Until then I encourage you to be constructive in letting the entry reflect the most important points from the available body of knowledge. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Caoimhin ceallach: "Undeniable group of amphikinetic n-stems which can't be considered 'individualizing" or "participant'": I disagree, as do Lundquist and Yates. Please explain how these two examples do not fall under the usage outlined under §2.4.2.: Participant nominalization. --{{victar|talk}} 02:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Lundquist and Yates have exactly one sentence on the topic of this suffix, in which they mention one example. That's not much of a basis for you to be so sure that they agree with you. They also say the n-stems are denominal or deadjectival participant nouns, even they Alexiadou (2014), who they reference, defines participant nouns as deverbal (page 237). So I don't know what to do with that.

Kroonen and Stüber on the other hand wrote books on the topic. How on earth are you still insisting we should dismiss their views?!

I changed my mind on carō. It could be considered a patient noun, although as you rightly say, it is uncertain. *h₂éksō can be neither individualising or participant because it is built to a base of the same meaning and *méh₂kō is of unclear derivation. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)