Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/-sōr
Latest comment: 5 months ago by Saph668 in topic RFD discussion: December 2023
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
One descendant with a total of… one term listed using it. Seems like an obvious delete unless it's absolutely not an independent development in Hittite. -saph 🍏 00:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be productive in the daughter languages to be a validly-reconstructed affix in PIE. There are at least three PIE terms that may include this suffix- one of which is the source for the word for sister in most of the Indo-European languages. The main question is whether the PIE terms allegedly using the suffix actually do use it. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Those three are? As far as I can tell, the only one reconstructed as using it at the PIE level is *swésōr, and even that seems a bit doubtful. -saph 🍏 00:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- They're listed in the Derived terms section: if you expand Proto-Indo-European terms suffixed with *-sōr, it shows *kʷétesres, *swésōr, *tisres.--Urszag (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies, didn't notice that. I'll remove the RFD then, I suppose. Though I do think the (already quite irregular) change from *kʷetwóres > *kʷétesres is suspect, given that we list the suffix as amphikinetic *(é)-sōr… more regularly it would be **kʷtusrés. -saph 🍏 03:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- They're listed in the Derived terms section: if you expand Proto-Indo-European terms suffixed with *-sōr, it shows *kʷétesres, *swésōr, *tisres.--Urszag (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Those three are? As far as I can tell, the only one reconstructed as using it at the PIE level is *swésōr, and even that seems a bit doubtful. -saph 🍏 00:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)