Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/-sōr

RFD discussion: December 2023
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, 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)