Talk:-omics

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

RFD 1[edit]

Green check.svg

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


All uses shown are blends, not stem+suffix. Perhaps another def.? DCDuring TALK 18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see that for Reaganomics, Clintonomics and Nixonomics; but Thatchernomics, Obamanomics, and Rogernomics seem more plausibly affix-like (though they are also plausible as blends). OED has this sense and an older one from -nomy with derivations like pyronomics. Color me neutral on the economics sense; it seems bogus, but on the other hand the morphology of these compounds is rather imponderable and this can be found in multiple reputable dictionaries (at least the OED and Webster's New International). -- Visviva 04:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
"Standardized" blends (you'll never see a blend of economics that goes -onomics unless the master word ends in -on or a similar syllable) tend to evolve toward a very strong suffixlike quality. Compare eco-, which one could argue actually evolved from blends with ecology, not the actual Greek root (I'm dubious about that purported French etymology... In any case, my Robert marks it as "extracted from écologie"). Circeus 05:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you know its competing with -omics for derived terms right now? I think -nomics may be a joinder of two adjectives -an + -omics. Such as Obama-an-omics. Goldenrowley 18:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
These uses seem to be vernacular constructions, not formal. There is no reason that both can not exist (wouldn't be the first time a prefix varied based on the last letter of the root to which it was joined). bd2412 T 03:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This should be kept as a no consensus in say, a week. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Biology[edit]

AFAIR "-omics" is a back-formation of genomics 76.66.197.17 13:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Economics[edit]

AFAIK, this should be -nomics, since every instance I've encountered it, it includes the "n". This includes advertising campaigns, where the other word used as the root does not contain an "n". 76.66.197.17 13:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In language, it seems that when one uses the word "should", one may not be taking the right point of view. Clearly there are many words that are derived from Ancient Greek words using the words transliterated as "nomos", ending in whatis transliterated as "-nomikos". Some words have been formed in English using -nomics. It would not be strange that someone would derive a word using -omics, imitating the sound of the words derived more in accord with the Ancient Greek etymology. The question is how to find them efficiently. OneLook.com and COCA allow wildcard searches for such words. DCDuring TALK 16:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
OED has aerodromics, atomics, loxodromics, orthodromics, photochromics and proteomics SemperBlotto 16:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
But those formations seem to be using longer Ancient Greek-derived combining forms or suffixes -drome , or -chrome, or the -oma/-ome (See -omics#Etymology 1.) + "-ics". See w:Omics for a discussion. I would not be surprised to find something from -tome + "-ics". The lack of doubled-n in oft-cited Reaganomics and similar words provides only a hint of the possibility, not real evidence. My efforts on OneLokk show that it is Etymology 1 of -omics might be productive, though I've not yet found a single instance of a term ending in -omics without a corresponing term ending in -ome or -oma. I wonder whether this should provide soft redirects to -nomics, -ome, and -ics instead of being a real entry, not that I would know how to do that in accord with our practice. It seems to need a disambiguation page for the two misconstructions it is based on. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
But atomics, photochromics, etc have nothing to do with economics, and are not related to etymology 2.
Atomics, photochromics, etc are also nothing to do with biology , except proteomics, which IIRC, from what I recall of biology articles, is a backformation from genomics. 76.66.197.17 06:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
aerodromics = aerodrome+-ics -- not -- aerodrome+-omics -- 70.29.210.242 13:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Atomic = atom + -ic, photochromics = photo + -chromic. I would be perfectly happy to direct users to the appropriate suffixes in the same spirit as our entries for common misspellings. We might even have a usage note. "-Omics" seems to have become a productive suffix in its own right in biology and medicine. It might become productive in other realms soon, but I have yet to see an attestable example outside those fields. A parallel situation is -nym becoming a suffix on its own, derived from the much more common -onym, which is closer to the Ancient Greek [script needed] (onoma, name). DCDuring TALK 15:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

RFD 2[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


From RFV:

Rfv-sense: economics sense, derived from -nomics. I haven't seen an attestable example of a formation that is not actually from -nomics, including the sole example given Reaganomics. Only if one does not allow a deletion operation in suffixation is that a good example. Are there morphological authorities who would not allow deletion of this type in suffixation. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe Bushomics meets CFI as an alternative form of Bushonomics, though not with much room to spare: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Likewise Carteromics for Carternomics: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Neither one is exactly "common". —RuakhTALK 19:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Groups only? Why wouldn't they be rare misspellings? (Seriously.) They would seem to be considered misspellings in edited works. That would seem to make them less desirable to use in almost all registers in writing. DCDuring TALK 20:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I further note that Bushnomics and Carternomics would both seem to be attestable alternative spellings from edited works. DCDuring TALK 20:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

RuakhTALK 13:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I don't know; it depends on whether the candidate derived terms are classed as misspellings. The entry -nomics seems worth undeleting. A syn-ring would be -omics, -nomics and -onomics. From the three, -onomics would be probably the most common one: compare "Bushonomics", "Bushnomics" and *"Bushomics". To construe a suffix for a set of blends is a bit tricky anyway; we had a similar case with "-burger" I think: "-burger" is a suffix implied in blending of "hamburger" with, say, cheese; and so "-onomics" is a suffix implied in blending of "economics" with, say, "Bush". --Dan Polansky 13:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. In the case of -burger the first instances of use can, for purposes of historical derivation be considered blends. Once burger came to be a freestanding word among a sufficient number of speakers, arguably, all formation could be considered compounding, historically speaking. Had it not become freestanding, it would be a suffix.
    Viewed synchronically from the present, all uses of "burger" except those very few which are not combined with a key differentiating ingredient (eg, hamburger) would seem to be as compounds of burger.
    This case differs because of the alteration by deletion of the affix.
  2. There is a related question of how to handle the addition of the purported interfix -o-. I think we do well to just treat it as one in etymologies.
  3. Suffix alteration in the affixation process, such as this "n"-deletion seems to require us to have at least a redirect to the suffix we deem to be core one.
  4. In contrast, base alteration in any affixation process is best explained briefly in an Etymology section (eg, "stem of", "alteration of"}, without requiring a new entry for the morphological component, IMO.
This leads me to believe that this should not be merely deleted. It could be a redirect for now. With more evidence of productivity, even of numerous nonces, inclusion would be justified, though not within CFI as we generally have applied it to affixes. DCDuring TALK 13:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

{{look}}

moved back to -nomics. Why that was deleted in the first place beats me. -- Liliana 19:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)