Why is fucus reconstructed as *bhoiko-? Not *bhoikos or *bhoikon? Is "cus" a suffix like in raucus > ravis?

  • 2
    there is already a good answer, but for future questions about specifics of reconstructions to tell us where you got the reconstruction from, as these small details vary significantly between different authors
    – Tristan
    Commented Sep 15, 2021 at 14:51

2 Answers 2


This is purely a convention. Some Indo-Europeanists cite the stem-form of nouns (as in the Sanskrit grammatical tradition); others cite the nominative singular (as in Greek and Latin dictionaries).


As fdb said, some authors cite the stem rather than the nominative.

Note the hyphen at the end. This indicates that it's a stem, not a specific form: to get the nominative, you would apply a regular nominative ending and get *bhoyko-s > fūcus.

  • whilst applying the regular nominative ending works in this example, it may be worth noting that in some other instances it's a little less trivial (e.g. as a result of sound-changes usually reconstructed as already active at the PIE stage, the nominative of on-stems is usually recontructed as -*ō rather than expected -**ons). Even in situations like this though, the sound changes are fairly simple, they just need to born in mind
    – Tristan
    Commented Sep 15, 2021 at 15:13
  • 2
    @Tristan also, sometimes the gender of a noun maybe not known, so we either have -os or -om ending in nominative.
    – Anixx
    Commented Sep 15, 2021 at 15:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.