Talk:-antia

@Rua, JohnC5: Another questionable suffix. Isn't this simply -ia appended to present participle stems? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

That makes me wonder if we shouldn't move -ans, -ens and -iens to -ns. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, then there ought to be -entia and -ientia too. Is there? —Rua (mew) 23:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rua: audentia from audeo, scientia from scio. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Then yes, these are just -ia. 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)

@Rua: I've turned -entia and -antia into redirects to -ia, 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 autre paire de manches, though...

Any opinion on the -ans ~ -ens ~ -iens ~ -ns matter? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: Do you object to my turning -ans, -ens and -iens into redirects to -ns? --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)

@Metaknowledge: 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)