Talk:-ans

, what's wrong with the original etymology? --Tom 144 (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My issue is with the entry itself. -ans isn't a meaningful lexical unit/morpheme/suffix; it's two things stuck together (the stem vowel -a- + the real suffix ) that make up a (visual) ending. So from a conceptual standpoint, I don't think it makes much sense to give it an etymology.
 * Sorry, I don't know if I'm clear? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , I see your point, it seems reasonable. The ending was caused by the contraction of three morphemes eh₂-y-n̥t-s, but in general it could be viewed as the last one not contracting, and just the stem plus -ns. Maybe we should redirect to -ns then? The same would go to the variants. --Tom 144 (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I suggested that somewhere, but I can't remember where. EDIT: found it . --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support redirecting to -ns. -ens and -iens have other languages on the entry though. --Tom 144 (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)