Talk:-τήρ

These normalized formations differ from and  etc., which then seem to be old, when they somewhat retain original PIE duration. As I noted on Etymology here, on this suffix η was made common to all cases (almost as Latin -tor). -GuitarDudeness (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, your pages on suffixes are very helpful, and their corresponding Categories too; they become something of a companion to Grammar. It was the etymology of ἀστήρ that was not as clear to me (I do not know linguistics) because it did not say if hstḗr was truly under -tḗr but ok, I found it. Maybe a phrase like:  nominative long η made common to all cases taking the place of original short ε; compare  where ε is retained and  where ε is sometimes lost.  Oh, and of course, my {attention|grc} should be erased.
 * I was just wondering on how these other words would be categorized, if they did: the more archaeofashioned ε-retaining ones and the zero ones πατήρ, μήτηρ, θυγάτηρ, the capricious ἀνήρ... Thank you again for your nice work! sarri.greek (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Grateful for your words. Truly original seem to be those forms with singular nominative η, accusative ε and syncopated genitive and dative cases, as we see in . apparently is not . Those remaining could all be classed under  with apt notes. These irregular formations are more inherited/traditional than rational.  and  and  would stand on their own and not be seen as agent nouns of some verb. And  and  perhaps not being perceived as coming from  and  (as these verbs were apparently in little use) somewhat retained their original forms. All others being perhaps consciously derived from verbs were all under this normalized suffix. -GuitarDudeness (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)