Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/-st

Seems like this is used in nouns too:. Could someone add that? — Eru·tuon 04:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be lemmatised to, the nominative singular form of the suffix. I would like to know more about this suffix though, specifically its meaning/function. Do you have any sources that say anything about it? —CodeCat 13:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is the suffix claimed to be -st- and not just -s-?
The way it looks to me, and the way it's presented in most of the scholarly literature, is that the -t is just a 3rd person inflectional ending (after all, it isn't found in most of the other forms), and the actual derivational suffix is just -s-. The same applies to the other sigmatic aorists. I found a similar oddity in the treatment of the tOmos/tomOs type, where the suffix was said to be -os, even though the -s is just a nominative singular inflectional ending and isn't found in most of the other forms.--95.42.25.28 23:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's simply because we use the same lemma form for suffixes as we do for whole words. This can be compared to our treatment of attested Indo-European languages, such as, , , and many others. —Rua (mew) 10:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)