Talk:furcatus

We're currently parsing as  +, but  as  +.
 * Bothering you again, but I've run into another problem.
 * Is this difference of treatment justified?
 * If yes, why?
 * If not, which one is best?
 * The analysis "stem + -ātus" is very cogent when the stem isn't a first declension noun: from ;  from ;  from . But isn't it less clear when the stem is a first declension noun, as in  (which could well be "*barbā (with long ā) + -tus"?),  ("*īrā + -tus"?), etc.? Does the PIE evidence help? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Latin side of things, the suffix is, but on the PIE end this suffix is very likely indeed made out of -ā + -tus. —Rua (mew) 22:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've amended furcatus. On another note, do you think the two senses of the first suffix ( ===Etymology 1=== ) should be split in two etymologies? Or is it really a single suffix? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They're probably the same in PIE, but I have no idea how the semantics evolved. —Rua (mew) 17:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)