from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- adj. Inflected by substituting an unrelated form (for example, in English, the adjectival forms good, better, best).
- adj. Supplying deficiencies; supplementary; suppletory.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- adj. Supplying deficiencies; supplementary.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- Supplying; suppletory.
Sorry, no etymologies found.
According to this theory, the PIE s-aorist was originally a specially inflected type of root aorist in which the 3 sg. active form, for reasons now lost within the prehistory of PIE, was built from a suppletive sigmatic stem with 'Narten' *ē : *e ablaut.
I'm going to now assert the following premise for the sake of discussion: PIE *itself* still retained a subjective-objective contrast and this is what lies behind the suppletive *mi- and *h₂e conjugations.
For example, if we ponder on the suppletive declension of *so-/*to- "that", we notice that *so never receives case endings and is only ever used in the animate nominative while *to- is used everwhere else i.e. for the inanimate and all other cases other than nominative for all genders.
Now I can make sense of the suppletive pattern we see in the subjunctive-turned-future-indicative endings:
So I figure the best way to explain that is to propose a suppletive absolutive-ergative system for Nostratic as follows note that my intention is to conjecture for the sake of discussion:
There is one interesting, recurring feature in Nostratic language groups that I notice: a suppletive system involving two very unrelated forms for each person.
I sincerely hope one day, and hopefully not too late, you'll realized you've been in an abusive relationship where you were taken for granted for way too long and used as a suppletive force.
The same analysis is straightforward for oxen, assuming the stem suppletive plural morpheme - en.
Other, more extreme cases of allomorphy are called suppletion, where two forms related by a morphological rule cannot be explained as being related on a phonological basis: for example, the past of go is went, which is a suppletive form.
The term people is often used in English as the suppletive plural of person.