Talk:furcatus
Add topicLatest comment: 7 years ago by Rua
@JohnC5, Rua: Bothering you again, but I've run into another problem. We're currently parsing furcātus as furca + -tus, but barbātus as barba + -ātus.
- 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: reticulātus from reticulum; cornuātus from cornū; dentātus from dens. But isn't it less clear when the stem is a first declension noun, as in barbātus (which could well be "*barbā (with long ā) + -tus"?), īrātus ("*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 -ātus, but on the PIE end this suffix is very likely indeed made out of -ā + -tus. —Rua (mew) 22:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Rua: Thanks, I've amended furcatus. On another note, do you think the two senses of the first suffix -tus (===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)
- @Rua: Thanks, I've amended furcatus. On another note, do you think the two senses of the first suffix -tus (===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)