Talk:-ня

{{subst:wgpingru}} A couple of things:

1. -отня (-otnja) *is* a suffix, cf. легкотня (lexkotnja), трескотня (treskotnja), руготня (rugotnja), пачкотня (pačkotnja). It's true that all of these have stems ending in a velar, but that doesn't make -отня (-otnja) not a suffix; it's just a curiosity you might want to note on the -отня (-otnja) page.
2. I don't really like the category CAT:Russian words suffixed with -ня (nomen abundantiae oxytonum). I don't think it's really necessary at all to distinguish one usage of a given suffix from another in the category, and it's error-prone to try and maintain those labels. On top of this, the particular label you chose is going to be unhelpful to the vast majority of people as it's in Latin, which no one can read nowadays.

Benwing2 (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

(Notifying Atitarev, Cinemantique, Useigor, Wikitiki89, Stephen G. Brown, Guldrelokk, Fay Freak, Tetromino, Per utramque cavernam): My last subst didn't work. Benwing2 (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Well sometimes one does distinguish various kinds of suffixes. Error-prone? If I have described the usage correctly, it should not be error-prone. Haven’t I? Something to add? And the usage of those suffixes should be described, isn’t it, not just saying that “it forms nouns” because it forms nouns of a certain semantic relation to the stem it is formed from. Fay Freak (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

And what is with -овня like in болтовня́ (boltovnjá)? By meaning, this and the examples given for -отня can be identified with -ня – it is this suffix. I’d rather assume there are interfixes. Fay Freak (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak I'm not opposed to you distinguishing, on the page defining the suffix, the various purposes of a given suffix by their semantics; that is a good thing in fact. But I don't really like having these separate semantics distinguished in the category label. For one thing, someone has to go and manually annotate the etymologies of every term with -ня to add the appropriate id label, and there inevitably will be some that don't get annotated, so you end up with a random mixture of stuff in CAT:Russian words suffixed with -ня and CAT:Russian words suffixed with -ня (nomen abundantiae oxytonum). And what happens if it's not obvious which id applies? Then you have a real mess. On top of that, the use of Latin ID's needs to go, and be replaced with English labels.

As for -овня, that's also a real suffix, cf. жаро́вня (žaróvnja) from жар (žar), солодо́вня (solodóvnja) from со́лод (sólod), часо́вня (časóvnja) from час (čas), воло́вня (volóvnja) from вол (vol). And головня́ (golovnjá) had its suffix modified according to -овня (-ovnja) from *golvьna. I really don't like saying that e.g. легкотня is composed of лёгкий + some interfix -от- of unknown meaning that only occurs here + -ня. There's nothing wrong with having variant suffixes -ня / -овня / -отня with similar meanings, with the longer ones probably derived by rebracketing. Russian has plenty of examples of this, e.g. -ивый/-ливый/-чивый and -ский/-еский/-ческий/-ический. Benwing2 (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Benwing2 What about seeing -овня and -отня as allomorphs, i. e. these are token level representations of the same morpheme -ня, since the semantics are indeed from here. This is like we have in Category:Turkish words suffixed with -ci, -ci, -çı and what not together, since actually it is the same thing; in Turkic languages the desire has been more obvious.

I principally agree with the proposition that the Latin IDs need to go; it just been a matter of lacking creativity really and there haven’t come to my mind better English names; I can only think of rare calques of the Latin terms. The Latin terms “nomen officinae”, “nomen abundantiae”, “nomen resultatis” (though this one is kitchen Latin), “nomen agminis” have been used by others in English texts already, and for consistency I added “oxytonum” and “paroxytonum” since otherwise one has English “oxytone” and “paroxytone”. Fay Freak (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd just use soft redirects of the {{alternative form of|lang=ru}} variety. That way you can appropriatey indicate the pronunciation, declension and anything else that varies for the different morphemes. Benwing2 (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak I created -овня (-ovnja) the way I'd want it created; -отня (-otnja) should be similar. IMO they aren't allomorphs because they're too different; allomorphs in Russian would be e.g. -овый (-ovyj) vs. -евый (-evyj) vs. -ёвый (-jóvyj), and maybe also including -овой (-ovoj) and -евой (-evoj). Even in those cases, however, I'm not sure it's necessary to handle them differently from other suffixal variants in Russian; just using {{alternative form of}} seems to work fine. Benwing2 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The page creation as such is great, the same is done with those Turkic forms. These leaves three possibilities of categorizations. 1: We don’t categorize at all by senses 2: If a word shows -овня or -отня we use |alt2= to categorize under -ня and link to -ня (since it is the main entry and -овня and -отня refer to it for the meanings) 3. We add senseids to -овня and -отня too and categorize separately. Further input is needed. This all irrespective of the names given to the senseids; in case number 2 or number 3 are choosen the senseids are open to better namings. Even if you choose number 1 how ever it does not mean the senseids have to be removed since one can link them with {{l}}. Fay Freak (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer #1. It's the easiest and most maintainable solution, and there is useful info on the -овня and -отня pages (e.g. the pronunciation and the fact that -отня́ is always stressed as such). Benwing2 (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)