Talk:-dumbre

Etymology

User talk:Word dewd544 § Spanish certidumbre --Per utramque cavernam 10:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Instances

@Word dewd544: Hello. What about the Spanish podredumbre? Is it inherited from a Vulgar Latin *putritudine(m), or is it formed internally? --Per utramque cavernam 10:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There's another problem: the etymology of Spanish muchedumbre says it comes from Old Spanish muchedumne, muchidumne. It means the voicing of -t- is anterior to the -r- epenthesis, right? --Per utramque cavernam 10:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I suppose so, then. Interesting. I forget where exactly I got what I wrote earlier on the other page, but I guess it wasn't meant to be a precise answer in regards to the order of every step of the suffix's evolution, just meant to show the general trends. I think it does make sense, as the lentition of intervocalic -t- to -d- in most Ibero-Romance was quite an early development, and in most cases showed up I think in the earliest Medieval texts. Word dewd544 (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

And in regards to podredumbre, I'm thinking it's probably an internal formation. I can't seem to find any sources that make a link between that and *putritudine. Word dewd544 (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Word dewd544: Thanks. I wish we had a compendium of Romance phonetic laws somewhere; that could be a very interesting appendix.

Another question: what do you think of the etymology at costumbre? Is that intermediate step Vulgar Latin *costūmen correct/necessary? I'm disturbed by it, because it looks like a Classical third-declension neuter noun (nomen, nominis, agmen, agminis, etc.), which it obviously isn't. But that's probably just me confusing different chronological layers. --Per utramque cavernam 19:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure. You mean it would be a form *costumine? I mean it is ultimately based on a third-declension noun, but by the time it reached this particular state in Vulgar Latin, it would have looked/sounded different, and we can't know for sure obviously. I think it can work but then again I'm not a true expert on the nitty-gritty of all of this stuff and am more focused on adding etymologies that academics in the field have written about; I'm still learning new things in the process. This is more of a side hobby of mine. Word dewd544 (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Obsolete?

Hey. Why did you tag this as obsolete? --Genecioso (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Genecioso Is it productive in contemporary Spanish, meaning can you form new words with it? --Per utramque cavernam 15:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? --Genecioso (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Genecioso: I don't know, I don't speak Spanish. Do you have examples of recent coinages involving this suffix? --Per utramque cavernam 13:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't. It just seems to be wrong to have it as obsolete, as plenty of modernly-used words use the suffix. --Genecioso (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Genecioso: I see what you mean, but at the same time it's not productive in the way -ción is. Maybe our dated/archaic/obsolete labelling scheme doesn't really work for affixes, and we should only speak of productivity/non-productivity. I'll raise the question on the BP. --Per utramque cavernam 13:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You do that. I will have little more light to shed on the matter. --Genecioso (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/June § Labelling of bound morphemes Per utramque cavernam 14:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)