Talk:-ellus

Not -ellus

 * + →  (compare, which really uses )
 * + -lus → (having both circulus and circellus in CAT:Latin words suffixed with -lus is exquisitely counterintuitive)
 * → clauster- + →
 * + -lus →
 * + -lus →
 * + -lus →
 * + -lus →
 * + -lus →
 * + -lus →
 * → raster- + -lus →
 * + -lus →
 * → sigen- + -lus →


 * Do you agree with this? We should simply mention at that there are regressive assimilations at work.

Also, shouldn't we merge the cats for, , , with , which should be the main entry instead of ?

, why did you make the main entry? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Restored that link to References of . The origin seems to be Proto-Italic . I now do not remember whether this was already Proto-Indo-European or some later fabrication from simple . By various interpretations and syncopes came all other forms. And I agree with the above index (but it seems to be always -ulus often with syncope of -u-) and we should be careful in the indication of the suffix. Sihler (p. 209) gives corolla < *koronla < koronela, agellus < *agerlo < *agro-lo, puella < *puerla < *puero-la, which do not seem consistent, and he precisely does not divide *koronela... -GuitarDudeness (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This list looks good., should definitely link back to .  In the business of  vs. , are you suggesting everything be moved to ? —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 22:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * : If truly Proto-Italic ) is the ground form. -GuitarDudeness (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The cases that bother me most are the diminutives of diminutives. It seems a bit fussy to posit as a (if and only if) condition that there must be no simple/"intermediate" diminutives in -lus for a word to count as a true instance of -ellus.
 * exists > doesn't use -ellus
 * exists > doesn't use -ellus
 * exists > doesn't use -ellus
 * exists > doesn't use -ellus
 * ( exists > doesn't use -ellus)
 * exists > doesn't use -ellus
 * I'm always torn between the want to be diachronically accurate, and the temptation to be synchronically helpful. Oh well, being diachronically accurate is probably better, if what we're aiming at is a truly scientific work.
 * Isn't the u of -ulus nothing more than a thematic vowel? I don't really see why we should bother with it. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends on it coming from Proto-Italic, for which are cognates in other Italic languages. I also want to sort this. The connection with PIE -los seems obvious, but whence -e-?... I would say -lus be the ground form, but then what to make of that Faliscan cognate? And thus the kind of regulus and calculus (from reg- and calc-) would already be secondary (or insertion in *reglos and *calclos?). This needs more study and confirmation from sources. And I would suggest all other forms being derived from the ground form and not "Alternative forms" and the suffix must be better explained in every word page of some diminutive form. -GuitarDudeness (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So pre-Latin had a highly productive rule *-Tl- > *-Tol- which produced (< pre-Latin *-colom < *-clom < 🇨🇬 < 🇨🇬),  (< pre-Latin *-bolom < *-blom < *-βlom < 🇨🇬 < 🇨🇬 or < 🇨🇬 < 🇨🇬), and similarly  (but with "l exīlis" treatment, giving the -i- outcome). This issue is actually very interesting and is treated ad nauseam by Sen in Syllable and Segment in Latin. As such, there is no need to posit *-elos for consonant stems in Latin. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 01:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Weiss in Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin says was generalized from  using the thematic verbs ( <,  < ) and from the phonetic processes described above pertaining to  *-Tl-. So, it would seem that  is definitely the base form. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 05:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. So, should we start moving things shamelessly?
 * By the way, I think there's yet another category to empty: CAT:Latin words suffixed with -iter > CAT:Latin words suffixed with -ter; do you agree?
 * And last thing: I've suggested the deletion of several entries and cats at Requests_for_deletion/Non-English. Could you weigh in?
 * Pinging also. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * : Certainly. And, not ... all this class needs improvement... -GuitarDudeness (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * CAT:Latin words suffixed with -itas has already been emptied, fortunately. I think the entry in itself doesn't do too much harm (as long as no one starts using it again), but I wouldn't be too sad to see it deleted either. A note could as well be added to . --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good. Sorting then needs to come when from civi- is derived civi-tas and from veloc- is derived veloc-itas with the apparent misinterpreted/free use of -itas for -tas. And so with all others supra said. -GuitarDudeness (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)