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
, is clearly just a noun deriving another noun, and the etymology for  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. -- 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)
 * 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, which is derived from , not , so obviously not infallible. likely derives from an original s-stem, as as the source of the -s-, and my point about  is that it's "quite uncertain", so it's a poor example of anything. --  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, but that isn't necessarily the case. In PIE derived agent nouns and  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  means "an instrument for ploughing" and  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)
 * What does "a better account for the *-ō suffix" mean? 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. --  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)
 * "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. -- 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)