Talk:-buster

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

-buster

"Denoting a person, thing, or event that breaks or overpowers someone or something, as in ballbuster, blockbuster, broncobuster, gangbuster." Not a suffix. Identical definition is already given at buster, too. Equinox ◑ 17:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete, just buster as the second half of various compounds. Even speedy delete if anyone wants to. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There may be an idiomatic sense: I think it may have originated with w:Gang Busters. It refers to an elite unit that fights whatever the first part of the compound is. The name of the US show w:Mythbusters is a playful reference to this. In fact, a great many of the uses play on the pop-culture/comic-book quality of it. It's quite productive: it would be quite natural to style ourselves as the "SOP-Busters!!!™".Chuck Entz (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

But the coolest buster is Buster Baxter. --WikiTiki89 18:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Dumb question: If it is productive then why isn't it a suffix? Furius (talk)

Because it's a compound. A suffix has no meaning (or a different meaning) on its own. --WikiTiki89 08:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A suffix (or indeed prefix) can't stand alone with the same meaning. For example re- as in redo, but re can't have the same meaning on its own. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't pro-, anti-, after-, afore-, back-, by- (kinda), contra-, counter-, fellow-, forth-, grand-, half-, infra-, man-, mega-, mini-, nether-, new-, quarter- mean roughly the same thing when they are standalone words as they do when they are prefixes? Furius (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You've brought up a lot of terms there, if I were to comment on all of them I fear we'd get so far off topic we'd never get back on topic again. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, "Mythbusters" is a reference to a film "Ghostbusters" - "Gangbusters" in the US generally means something is doing exceptionally well, and does not refer to "Gang Busters" as a law enforcement group of any ilk. Collect (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

How are we sure that MythBusters is a reference to Ghostbusters? --WikiTiki89 14:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Would an episode where the Mythbusters don Ghostbusters outfits be a hint? Or this site <g> [1] showing how Americans view the name. Collect (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: Do we know that MythBusters derived its name from Ghostbusters, or is the reference secondary? --WikiTiki89 14:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You're no doubt correct about MythBusters and Ghostbusters, but Ghostbusters itself is an example of what I was talking about- so the reference is just one step more indirect. As for Gang busters, the sense you're talking about as in "going gangbusters", etc. is the only surviving direct reference- but that doesn't mean that it might not have started the other figure of speech way back when. I'm only speculating about its origins, but it's been around for a good number of decades- it was well-established long before Ghostbusters. I'm not absolutely certain it qualifies as a suffix, though it certainly feels like one to me. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Also note the usage "it was gangbusters" (indicating success) at [2] [3] and a veritable slew of other examples, M-W specifically uses it as an adjective for "excellent" and dates the term to 1971 (it is, of course, older). The radio programme was from the 1930s (ending in 1955) and is unlikely to be a source for a current usage. Collect (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

For an opinion from a usually reliably source see Douglas Harper (2001–2024) “gangbusters”, in Online Etymology Dictionary.. DCDuring TALK 19:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

And note that it is about the specific usage "to come on like Gangbusters" and not for the newer derived usage <g>. The usage of "excellent" is not given in the source proffered, which, at best, gives the "earliest etymology" but not the basis for the current usage. Collect (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 20:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)