Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/-lós

?
, do you not think that the diminutive suffix  is also from this source (ie, PIE ) ? Thanks!
 * existed only as a variant to in certain environments. See R:ine:de Goede:2014. --  23:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, in that book I saw the reconstructed form as *lo-. So is *-lós an extension thereof, or that the nominative singular is kept as the canonical form in Wiktionary? Anyways, having read that extended forms of this PIE suffix is much more productive, could it not be possible that , , ,  are all variants of the original , which itself could have been then a direct descendant of the said PIE suffix. Or at least, we need to take those forms into account in the reconstruction...
 * No. The thematization of PIE suffixes is an common theme throughout PIE descendants. Latin should really just be deleted as all the examples give on that page are actually examples of  and, all originating from a Italic /. The only exception to that is when the suffix is added to R-stems, sometimes forming double deminunatives. --  18:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I was actually, in my question, referring to the ending (ie, -s), and not the theme vowel.
 * *-lo- is just a declension-less version of *-los. -- 21:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)