Talk:jedno-

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

Deletion discussion[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.


jedno-[edit]

Keep. --WikiTiki89 22:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

nowo-[edit]

Delete. --WikiTiki89 22:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
What is wrong with this? Keep. Cf Russian ново- (novo-) - новогреческий. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I said what's wrong with it. And ново- (novo-) should go too for the same reason. —CodeCat 22:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I see now. I will answer below, after your comment. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
This can be done with any adjective. The ones I voted keep for are not really adjectives, or at least don't have the exact same meaning as the adective. --WikiTiki89 22:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

samo-[edit]

Keep. --WikiTiki89 22:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

staro-[edit]

Delete. --WikiTiki89 22:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
What is wrong with this? Keep and enhance the meaning. A common prefix, similar to Russian старо- (staro-) - старомодный, стародавний, старославянский. Surely not just related to languages and древне- (drevne-) древнегреческий, древнерусский, etc.?

само-[edit]

Keep. --WikiTiki89 22:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And the corresponding categories. This is just the combining form of a word which is formed regularly by attaching -o- as a linking vowel. All Slavic languages form compounds in this way, so I don't think this should be considered a "prefix". If this is a prefix, then any Slavic word that has ever been used as the non-final part of a compound could be called a prefix, which is a bit silly. —CodeCat 19:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Not all Slavic adjectives can form prefixes or form them the same exact way, even if that was the case, that's not a good argument to delete them, like any English verb can have an -ing form. Users may want to know what they mean, especially the productive as listed here. I personally see no need in categorising by used prefixes but some people do. Anyway, no need to be annoyed with too many words or word forms in any language. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete This is the main reason I've been letting the " words [af]fixed with " categories pile up while I've been working on Special:WantedCategories: the difference between affixes and independent elements of compounds can be very subtle and tricky. The only thing that gives me pause is that at least one set were created by an experienced native speaker (User:Kephir). Chuck Entz (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep Strong keep all. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Why? DCDuring TALK 22:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
@DCDuring: Why should prefixes be deleted in ANY language? I don't get it. They are correct forms too and have correct English translations, which may be enhanced. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what deleting prefixes has to do with this nomination. These are not prefixes. —CodeCat 23:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
They are prefixes. What are they then in your opinion? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
They are prefixed adjectives. Compare German Althochdeutsch; alt- is not a prefix, but just a prefixed adjective. --WikiTiki89 23:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
As I said, I don't think predictability is an argument for deletion at all and it's not always predictable. Besides, German alt- has the same form as alt, apart from the hyphen but но́вый (nóvyj) and ново- (novo-) are different. ру́сский (rússkij)->русско- (russko-), физи́ческий (fizíčeskij)->физико- (fiziko-) (физическо- doesn't exist, so many others, seemingly predictable forms). Some adjectives form prefixes differently - дре́вний (drévnij)->древне- (drevne-) (it's -е, not -о) or have variations - французско- (francuzsko-)/франко- (franko-), японско- (japonsko-)/японо- (japono-). I don't understand the rush to delete them. Does it cause any categorisation problem or what is it?. @Kephir: some of the above are your edits. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
No one said anything about a rush. CodeCat simply thinks they don't meet CFI, and I agree but only about some of them. --WikiTiki89 00:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Use of the stem vowel in compounds is nothing new. It stems back to Indo-European and is found in many descendants. Latin has countless examples of this, as do Greek, Sanskrit and Gothic. In each case the formula for forming a compound is predictable. It's the bare stem of the word, in the Indo-European sense: the -o- in these Slavic compounds is simply the reflex of the Indo-European thematic vowel, just like in the other languages I named. So essentially, if not all words have combining forms, it equates to the same thing as saying they cannot form compounds. Either way, these are not prefixes. —CodeCat 00:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
(E/C) I'll wait for more comments. I strongly disagree with you both on this. I don't think (predictable or unpredictable) prefixes in other Indo-European languages should be deleted either, no matter how many there are. Besides, adjectival entries mostly lack info on how these prefixes are formed and we don't cater only for users who are "smart enough" to do it themselves or are of Indo-European descent. All words in all languages. Many of the prefixes will pass the Lemming test too. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
You're working on the assumption that these are prefixes, so in my view any argument founded in that point is automatically moot. Let's say a Russian has two random words, and wants to make a compound. I'm pretty sure that the compound will be formed by adding the appropriate linking vowel -o- or -e- to the stem of the first part, and then attaching the second part. It's no different from the linking -s- found in many Germanic languages in how it's used. Just because a word does not have exactly the same form as it would when it stands alone doesn't make that form a distinct prefix. The forms using -s- in the Germanic languages aren't prefixes either; if they were, then those languages would have thousands of prefixes, all derived from the noun by adding -s-. In the same way, these forms with -o- are not prefixes in Slavic, otherwise Slavic languages too would have hundreds or thousands of prefixes. —CodeCat 00:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Can you form prefixes using Russian adjectives деревя́нный (derevjánnyj), водяно́й (vodjanój)/во́дный (vódnyj) and лесно́й (lesnój) with confidence? Hint: they do have prefixes but not just by adding -о to the stem. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Those are all attributive adjectives, formed from a noun with the -n- suffix. So I'm going to guess that compounds will be derived from the base noun, not from the adjective. —CodeCat 00:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Well done! They are дерево- (derevo-), водо- (vodo-), лесо- (leso-) but attributive adjectives also commonly form prefixes by adding -о to the stem. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
You guys are confusing everything. водный (vodnyj) is an adjective and it forms compounds such as воднолыжный (vodnolyžnyj); вода (voda) is a noun and it forms compounds such as водопровод (vodoprovod). The stems are much more regular than you are letting on. --WikiTiki89 00:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
(E/C)Nothing's confused. I was gonna add the alternative prefixes with separate senses. It's not so straightforward at all. лесно- (lesno-) doesn't exist and a huge number of words prefixed водо- (vodo-) (a MUCH more productive suffix) would use водяно́й (vodjanój) or во́дный (vódnyj) if analysed as adjective + other word. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Then you're analyzing it wrong, can you give some examples? --WikiTiki89 01:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I do everything wrong if I don't agree with you, don't I? во́дный обме́н (vódnyj obmén) ->водообме́нный (vodoobménnyj), водообме́нник (vodoobménnik). Even a better example for you, since the unabbreviated form is well-known - во́дная процеду́ра (vódnaja procedúra) ->водопроцеду́рный (vodoprocedúrnyj). No need to state the obvious fact that водно- (vodno-) is also used in the 2nd case. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
You're proving my point. "Водообменный" is not from "водный обмен" but from "водообмен", which in turn is from "обменять воду". And neither водопроцедурный nor воднопроцедурный seems citeable, but I think the latter would be more common if it were a real and useful word. --WikiTiki89 01:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Many Russian derived or inflected forms are not citable with Google but they are still valid and correct Russian words. Google still needs to learn that the Russian language has complicated inflections, forms diminutives or pejorative forms and can form words with prefixes. And I'm not proving YOUR point, it's во́дный обме́н (vódnyj obmén) even if it's also "обме́н воды́". --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
But it doesn't matter whether it's "водный обмен" or "обмен воды". What matters is that in the compound form "водообмен" (with or without additional suffixes), it is the noun form of water that is prefixed, not the adjective form. I don't see any reason to believe that a nontrivial analysis is better than a trivial one in this case. --WikiTiki89 01:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I can see it's useless. водообме́н (vodoobmén) can be analysed as во́дный обме́н (vódnyj obmén), even if you deny it. I think you're going to twist my words to suit your point. I'm gonna leave it at that and let the RFD process to take its course. I have said enough. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
"водообмен" means the same thing as "водный обмен", but the question here is derivation, not meaning. "водообмен" is вода + -о- + обмен (voda + -o- + obmen), while "водный обмен" is водный + обмен (vodnyj + obmen). --WikiTiki89 02:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Still, my point is not invalid. Even if the combining form is not necessarily fully predictable from a given word, it doesn't change the fact that every noun (and maybe adjective) will have a combining form of some sort, as compounding is still productive in Russian. Thus, I argue, these prefixes are not lexically significant; they're an open set and have meanings fully predictable from the noun. That implies that if we have entries for all of them, we'll quickly overrun Category:Russian prefixes with hundreds of entries with definitions that are carbon copies of their corresponding noun lemmas. You'd end up with the Russian equivalents of tree-, water-, food-, apple-, cat-, word-, road-, gold-, sound- and so on. —CodeCat 01:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
In Russian, many things are unpredictable, like in any languages. Many of the nouns/adjectives would never have a related prefix or a borrowed/suppletive form be used. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
As for the question of -e- versus -o-, I think that's obvious. It's the same alternation between hard and soft endings that is found all over Russian and the other Slavic languages. Again, completely predictable based on the stem-final consonant. —CodeCat 00:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
As above, adjective entries lack this info and this kind of predictability is known by linguists, native speakers or advanced learners. We also allow all inflected forms. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

*carriage-return* Delete. Our policy is all words in all languages, but these are not words, they are word parts, and I believe we need much higher standards for word parts than we typically hold to. It is my opinion that we should only have entries for combining parts if they meet a number of criteria, namely that they are productive in the language in question, and that they are not existing words that are compounded using predictable rules. There is some wiggle room, for example when an existing word behaves slightly differently when compounded than when not. See πρό (pró) for an example of how I believe this is best accomplished. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep all. I understand the difficulty in calling these prefixes, but whatever they are, they are as valid dictionary entries as any of the so-called English prefixes ending in o-, like hydro- and pyro- and geo- and aero- and what have you. The only difference between these and the Slavic examples is that the Slavic languages use native stems to form these whatever-they-ares, while English uses Greek stems. But that doesn't invalidate the Slavic entries IMO. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • What about the point I raised earlier, that these are an open set? Most Slavic nouns automatically have such compounding stems, and my guess is that hundreds of them are likely to be attestable (all it takes is one attestable compound using it). So that means hundreds of extra "prefixes" in Category:Russian prefixes and the like, which would completely swamp all the real prefixes without contributing any lexical information to the reader. I think the observation you make is really a crucial difference too: these are built from native words. In English, pyro- is a lexically significant word element, because it's not analysable as anything else; *pyr is not a native English word, nor do any of the others you named have obvious counterparts as distinct words. But if you go back to their Ancient Greek origins, then suddenly all of them do have counterparts that are distinct words, and these are no longer lexically significant. Would we include πυρο- (puro-) or anything like that as a "prefix" in Ancient Greek? Of course not, because there would be hundreds and even thousands of them. Just look at Unsupported titles/Ancient Greek dish; it's full of such combining forms, but there's no way we would ever think of including all of them as separate "prefix" lemmas! The situation for the Slavic languages is no different from that of Ancient Greek.
    • Now, I can understand that it may be useful to readers to know what the combining form of a noun is. And I completely agree, that is useful. But that doesn't mean it deserves a full lemma entry of its own, with a separate definition. The combining form is just that, a form of the noun. If someone wants to create all these hundreds and thousands of entries as form-of entries, something like "combining form of (main noun)", I would not oppose that. We should probably include them in inflection tables as well. —CodeCat 13:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Another difference is that "hydro", "pyro", "geo" and "aero" cannot be used on their own in English. Keφr 13:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
      • That isn't really a difference, because these Slavic compounding forms can't be used on their own either. Another parallel I thought of is Sanskrit महा (mahā), which we do have an entry for, but we list it as an Adjective, not a Prefix. It's a native stem, and it's neither the lemma form of the adjective nor one of its normal inflected forms. So it's defined as "compounding form of महत् (mahat)" and categorized as an adjective form. Would that be preferable here for the Slavic cases? I still feel like CodeCat's arguments amounts to "I don't like calling these prefixes and categorizing them as prefixes" rather than "These entries have no business in a dictionary." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I would keep jedno-, if only because there are dwu-, trój-, czwór- (which cannot be explained away to be independent words + -o-). samo- seems to emphasise the "on its own, self-sufficient" meaning rather than "isolated, alone" of sam. I am not sure what I can say to defend nowo- and staro-, but they do subjectively feel like prefixes independent from their adjectives in a way that some other words would not (like in biało-czerwony, grzybobranie, myszoskoczek, rybołów); I find it really hard to pinpoint why, though. (And I am quite torn whether jasno- (bright) and ciemno- (dark) count as independent prefixes or not.) In the same vein we might as well nominate przed-, nad-, pod-, od-, w-, po- (arguing they are all identical to their corresponding prepositions) or even nie- (the same as the particle nie)… do you really want to? Keφr 13:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Ah, samo- is also a prefix of archaic numeral-pronoun-adjectives (e.g. pl:samotrzeci, meaning "with a company of two"). Not used in contemporary language (may need to be tagged as zlw-opl), and probably not directly to the "self-" meaning, though. Keφr 14:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • For the remaining numerals, you need to know a bit of history to understand why they don't have -o- in them. I mentioned earlier that this -o- is the thematic vowel, so historically it applied only to thematic words (o- and a-stems). These other numerals were not thematic in PIE, and the lack of -o- in these forms is therefore just an archaism. I don't know if this distinction still applies in modern Polish (that is, whether the distinction between thematic and athematic declensions is still consistent). If it doesn't, then these are just irregular, which is not terribly surprising as the remaining inflections of those numerals are also irregular. But in any case that's why. —CodeCat 14:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I have no idea what an "athematic declension" is (reading w:thematic vowel did not help much), so it probably means no. But the point was, if we include productive prefixes meaning "two, double" and "three, triple", there is no reason not to include a productive prefix meaning "one, single". If people want to look up the former, they would also like to know about the latter. Keφr 15:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Abstain for now. I tend to avoid creating these things for Czech. In Czech, I think of them not so much as prefixes but rather as combining forms; they are needed for formation of compounds. From Category:Czech compound words, one can extract barvo- (barva), boho- (bůh), cukro- (cukr), deseti- (deset), děje- (děj), těsno- (těsný), etc. Usually, you must use a combining form in Czech to form a compound, although there is a relatively small class of compounds that are formed without a combining form. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Angr. Either as lemma or form-of entry.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    Having thought about it, I think I agree that the ones that I voted delete for can be converted to {{form of|Prefixed form}}, since they really are just that and even though it is pointless to repeat the definition, it still makes sense to have entries. Maybe we can even create {{prefixed form of}}. --WikiTiki89 20:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Was anyone aware that we have a template called {{combining form of}}, which puts entries in language-specific categories based on Category:Combining forms by language? It seems to me that we should change the POS to that of the base form (in this case "numeral"), and use {{combining form of}} exactly like we would use {{alternative form of}} in an alternative form entry. Then we have to remember to use {{compound}} instead of {{prefix}} in the etymologies. About the only thing missing is something to replace {{prefixsee}}. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I wasn't aware of it. I think that's exactly what's called for here. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I've made the change to samo-. The entries are categorised as adjective forms, and use {{combining form of}}. How is this? —CodeCat 16:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
      I object to this. I think samo-/само- and jedno- deserve having full definitions. --WikiTiki89 17:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
      Then copy-and-paste the definitions of the base word. Except that would be duplication, which we should avoid. That's why {{combining form of}} is a better solution. —CodeCat 18:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
      What I'm trying to say here is that the definitions of the prefixes I named are different enough from the base words. --WikiTiki89 18:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Looks good to me. That's exactly what I've done with महा. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Any idea why {{combining form of}} puts things into Category:form of lacking "of"? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I oppose this. These are definitely not adjective forms, because Polish adjectives cannot modify other adjectives, while these prefixes can (jednospójny, staropolski, nowoczesny). Arguments that these came from a noun, which only later was turned into an adjective would seem rather contrived (quick, what is the noun from which staropolski was derived?). I would be surprised to learn of other Slavic languages which do not work this way. Keφr 16:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I don't understand your argument. They are forms of adjectives. Adjective forms. What they can modify doesn't really have anything to do with that. Participles are verb forms that can modify nouns, and we have no problem calling them verb forms all over Wiktionary. (As for your question, staropolski was derived from the adjective stary, the noun pole (field) and the adjective-forming suffix -ski.) —CodeCat 17:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
          • No, it was formed as staro- (or staro) + polski, because pole has never acquired any meaning related to the language; only the adjective polski did. I could argue these prefixes have more in common with adverbs than adjectives; in most cases, they even have identical form, see równociągły, długowieczny. However, these prefixes are not limited to adjectives. The noun nowożeńcy (newlyweds) is a quite established word, while nowomowa (newspeak) actually sounds somewhat less contrived than its English equivalent. Keφr 18:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Saying that staro- is a form of stary does not mean it has to have the same part of speech. Adjectives have adverbial forms, verbs have nominal, adjectival, and adverbial forms, etc. --WikiTiki89 19:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A question for the keepers: should German Inhalts- be included as a combining form or prefix, implied in Inhaltsverzeichnis? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, I think so. The same way Inhalts is created and kept. We're allowing inflected forms, why shouldn't we allow combining forms - for languages where it differs from lemma? I'm not suggesting to create them manually. I'm softening my position from "strong keep" to "keep" and not insisting that they are prefixes any more but they should be kept. We could use a different template, like {{combining form of}} or something and categorise with Category:LANGUAGE combining forms. Inhalts- is predictable but we shouldn't assume all our users are smart and should know grammar well. E.g. there's nothing unpredictable in the Russian adjective form ле́тняя (létnjaja). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    Inhaltsverzeichnis is a three-part compound of Inhalt + -s- (Fugen-s) + Verzeichnis, as is stated in de.Wikt's entry on it. Inhalts- is not a prefix or "combining form" so much as it's just the first element of the compound followed by second element, followed by a hyphen showing that the third element has been omitted. An entry for it would be arbitrary — why not have an entry for *Inhalt-, i.e. just the first element of the compound + a hyphen showing that the second and third elements were omitted? Why not an entry for -verzeichnis or even -sverzeichnis? Better to stick to entries for the actual components of the word, IMO (viz Inhalt, -s-, Verzeichnis). - -sche (discuss) 19:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have been giving the combining forms in a Usage notes section of the base entry for many years, without creating separate entries for them. --Vahag (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    Creating combining or inflected forms is a hassle but there is no harm in having them and let bots create them. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus to delete any of these. bd2412 T 01:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)