From multiple sources, including extraction from words derived with-o from verb stems ending in-i, as well as from earlier and still dialectal-i(j)o, from-ja-i (for labialai >o, compare plural forms ofkala-type nouns), from-ja +-i.
A common but false misconception is that countries that end with-ia in Ido, for exampleAlbania, use this suffix when in fact it's part of the root itself. Though,-io at times can help shape country names to fit;Mexikia uses the extrai so not to be confused withMexiko(“Mexico City”) at the same time resembling other country names.
Suffixed to noun or adjective stems, forms variousnouns designating persons that are characterized by or related to the base word, such as nicknames or names of professions.
Suffixed to noun or adjective stems, forms certainnouns designating things; often described as a kind of diminutive.
Personal appellations ending in-iō appear to have often had a derogatory or pejorative shade of meaning, which in some cases resulted in a sense near that of a diminutive, as in the case ofhomunciō.[1]
1At least one use of the Old Latin "sigmatic future" and "sigmatic aorist" tenses is attested, which are used byOld Latin writers; most notablyPlautus andTerence. The sigmatic future is generally ascribed a future or future perfect meaning, while the sigmatic aorist expresses a possible desire ("might want to"). 2The present passive infinitive in-ier is a rare poetic form which is attested.
1At least one use of the Old Latin "sigmatic future" and "sigmatic aorist" tenses is attested, which are used byOld Latin writers; most notablyPlautus andTerence. The sigmatic future is generally ascribed a future or future perfect meaning, while the sigmatic aorist expresses a possible desire ("might want to"). It is also attested as having a rare sigmatic future passive indicative form ("will have been"), which is not attested in the plural for any verb.
Ultimately fromProto-Indo-European*-yéti(denominative suffix). The question of how it came to be differentiated from third-conjugation-iō, -ere is still debated. Vine 2012 derives denominatives such asserviō from*serw-e-yé/ó- (with the thematic vowel *-e- before the suffix), proposing that unaccented Proto-Indo-European *-e- came to be assimilated in Italic to an immediately following *-y-.[2] Alternative explanations include an Italic version ofSievers's law (that is, a prosodically conditioned development of postconsonantal *-y-* to *-iy- in certain contexts) or combination of the suffix with stems ending in *-i-. Some verbs may be derived from backformation from adjectives ending in-ītus, such asigniō, whose finite forms are attested later thanignītus(“fiery, glowing”).[3]
1At least one use of the Old Latin "sigmatic future" and "sigmatic aorist" tenses is attested, which are used byOld Latin writers; most notablyPlautus andTerence. The sigmatic future is generally ascribed a future or future perfect meaning, while the sigmatic aorist expresses a possible desire ("might want to").
^Vine, Brent (2012) “PIE mobile accent in Italic: Further evidence”, in Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead, Thomas Olander, Birgit Anette Olsen, and Jens Elmegård Rasmussen, editors,The Sound of Indo-European: Phonetics, phonemics, and morphophonemics, Museum Tusculanum Press
^Ernout, Alfred,Meillet, Antoine (1985) “ignis”, inDictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: histoire des mots (in French), 4th edition, with additions and corrections ofJacques André, Paris: Klincksieck, published2001, page308