Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/ǵénh₁tis
Latest comment: 6 years ago by GuitarDudeness
@CodeCat: Why not Proto-Italic *genatis? -GuitarDudeness (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Because it's not in Latin either. —CodeCat 17:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is that it? Then why *-tis, if Latin has -(t)s?... Could not some loss be between Proto-Italic and Latin? With *genator and *genamen, how not *genatis? P.S. - So whence gens per De Vaan? -GuitarDudeness (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- -tis > -s is a regular development of the -tis verbal nouns in Latin. Anyway, I've fixed the descendant, the true descendant was actually Proto-Italic *gnātis which was extended to *gnātiō. —CodeCat 17:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but gēns should be referred to this page or its history explaned somewhere. I remembered Sihler saying it to be some later anit development. -GuitarDudeness (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- -tis > -s is a regular development of the -tis verbal nouns in Latin. Anyway, I've fixed the descendant, the true descendant was actually Proto-Italic *gnātis which was extended to *gnātiō. —CodeCat 17:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is that it? Then why *-tis, if Latin has -(t)s?... Could not some loss be between Proto-Italic and Latin? With *genator and *genamen, how not *genatis? P.S. - So whence gens per De Vaan? -GuitarDudeness (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)