Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/-s

Etymology
Could it be, that "-s" be the enclitic for ?--Manfariel (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * eqos (the horse) ← so eq (this horse); eqā (the mare) ← eqas (the mare) ← sa eq (this mare).--Manfariel (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice theory LolPacino (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Analysis as derivation
Given that -s is the inflection for nominative singular and doesn't occur in most of the other cases, it seems dubious that it should be treated as a derivational suffix. Ringe, who is cited for this, does not make such an analysis of PIE word formation on the page in question; there is just a table with noun paradigms on that page. I don't know about the other source.--95.42.25.28 06:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I am also not aware of any scholar who treats Indo-European morphology this way. The standard model that I know (Proto-Indo-European_language) is to split a word in to R(oot), S(uffix), and E(nding). The way we seem to treat it at the moment is to group S and E together into one, to call it "suffix", and to couple it with a prototypical accent-ablaut paradigm, giving you entries of a "suffixes" like . This looks neat, but I don't know to what extent it's scientifically justifiable. Here, in the case of so-called "-s" however, we are actually dealing with a zero-suffix (-∅-), leaving the nominative singular animate ending -s as the only visible part of our "suffix", which is just confusing. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)