Talk:-antia


 * Another questionable suffix. Isn't this simply appended to present participle stems? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes me wonder if we shouldn't move, and  to . --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then there ought to be and  too. Is there? —Rua (mew) 23:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * from, from . --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Then yes, these are just . The definition of that needs some adjusting too. "First declension" has nothing to do with the meaning of a suffix, that belongs under Inflection. —Rua (mew) 23:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've turned and  into redirects to, which I've adjusted. I wouldn't be surprised to find words where "participle present + -ia" won't work, but let's say that -antia and -entia are innocent until proven guilty. The Romance descendants are going to be an , though...
 * Any opinion on the -ans ~ -ens ~ -iens ~ -ns matter? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you object to my turning, and  into redirects to ? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a better analysis, but nobody will think to look it up that way. Better to leave -ans and the like as soft redirects. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * mh, yes. I wish we could put some sort of disclaimer to the effect of "we only have this to make your life easier, but it's poor work; go there instead". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)