Talk:sug-
RFD[edit]
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, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Unlike #-ren, which is at least quasi-recognisable as a suffix in "children", "thingren" etc, this is opaque (I would never have thought of "suggest" as containing a prefix). I'll be shocked if it's still productive. Was "sug-" ever added to terms? Wasn't it that "sub-" was added and then assimilated? This is best handled by a usage note or etymological note in [[sub-]], IMO. - -sche (discuss) 05:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is a Latin variant prefix, not an English one. So far as I can see, English does not assimilate the subg ---> sugg, ever: hence subgroup, subglacial, subgrain, subgenre, subgrade, subglumaceous, subgluteal, subgoal, etc.
- It seems that the only words in English which begin with sugg- derive from suggest, suggilate (from Latin suggillo, apparently, and therefore not indicative of an English prefix), or sugging (an acronym). delete. Furius (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, does not exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete children is at least analysable as child+-ren, even if that's not how it formed. What's suggest meant to be? It's not sug-+gest! The verb gero, which gave us suggest, never transferred into English (or if it did, certainly not as gest). It's not prefixed to an English word, therefore it's not an English prefix. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete DCDuring TALK 20:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Striking. —RuakhTALK 17:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Like #sub-. Was this ever a prefix in English, or was it only ever a variant used in Latin? Consider "subplot", "subpage", etc which do not assimilate to *"supplot", etc. - -sche (discuss) 20:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Striking. —RuakhTALK 17:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Like #sub-. This one has two senses, the second of which relates to the first sense of #sur-; I suppose it could make sense to keep the "variant of super-" one, but the "variant of sub-" sense only existed in Latin, AFAICT. Consider "subclass", "subculture", etc (not *"succlass", *"succulture"). - -sche (discuss) 20:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Striking. —RuakhTALK 17:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
RFD of etymology 2, which is like #sub-, as well as of etymology 1. Consider "subroutine", "subregion". - -sche (discuss) 20:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC) - -sche (discuss) 23:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- My vote for now is delete sug-, sup-, suc- and sur-. If someone finds examples of enough words coined in modern English that include any of these suffixes they should be kept. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. This is symptomatic of a more general problem: most monosyllabic Latin prefixes ending in a consonant either assimilate or drop that consonant in many environments, and the way we've handled that is by lemmatizing all the variants we notice. Think about all the variants of ad- (a-, ab-, ac-, af-, ag-, al-, an-, ap-, ar-, as-, at-), com- (co-, cog-, col-, con-, cor-), ex- (e-, ef-), in- (il-, im-, in-, ir-), ob- (oc-, of-, op-), and of course, sub- (suc-, suf-, sug-, sum-, sup-, sur-, sus-). There are probably some I missed, and we might be able to expand this further by bringing in an Ancient-Greek prefix or two. And a couple may be open to interpretation, such as cog-, which might be co- + gn (as a variant of n). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Examples for the redlinked prefixes: aggrandize, aggregate, assimilate, assonance, cognate, occlude, occult, oppose, opportunity, summon. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, of course. I've added "suf-" and "sus-" to this set of RFDs (RsFD? RsFDs?). I think each "set" of variants should have its own RFD; some might have stronger arguments for retention than others (e.g. it might be worth keeping both "con-" and "co-", "ex-" and "e-", whereas "of-" as a variant of "ob-" seems like an obvious candidate for deletion). - -sche (discuss) 03:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, of- is one of the bluelinks that are from sections in other languages. No one has created this... yet. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm don't think that we have been handling the problem by lemmatizing. DCDuring TALK 03:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, of course. I've added "suf-" and "sus-" to this set of RFDs (RsFD? RsFDs?). I think each "set" of variants should have its own RFD; some might have stronger arguments for retention than others (e.g. it might be worth keeping both "con-" and "co-", "ex-" and "e-", whereas "of-" as a variant of "ob-" seems like an obvious candidate for deletion). - -sche (discuss) 03:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Examples for the redlinked prefixes: aggrandize, aggregate, assimilate, assonance, cognate, occlude, occult, oppose, opportunity, summon. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Etymology 1, Delete Etymology 2 This one is slightly different to the others. The Latin sense I'm fine with deleting, but the French one seems to have been at least a bit productive in modern English. According to Oxford Dictionaries, surrejoinder and surrebuttal/surrebutter were both formed in English in the 16th century, and surtitle appears to be a word invented in English too. Plus, often when French words were adopted into English, they were partially calqued so sur- remained but the word it was prefixed to was translated to English. surname is sur- + name, via surnom, surcease comes from reanalysing the French sursis as sur- + cease, surround comes from reanalysing the French soronder as sur- and round, and so on. There seems to have been at least some understanding of the French sur- as a prefix in a way that there wasn't for the Latin sur-. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Etymology 1 per SMurray.
- Delete Etymology 2 per SMurray. DCDuring TALK 10:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I withdraw my RFD of Etymology 1, per SMurray. (RFD of Etymology 2 still applies.) - -sche (discuss) 23:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted etymology 2. - -sche (discuss) 09:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Striking. —RuakhTALK 17:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Chuck pointed out that I'd missed two of the sub-variants. :b This one amusingly lists "suffocate" as a derivation, as if that word formed in English... I'd like to "focate" that idea, but I'm not sure what "focate" means because it's never been an English word! - -sche (discuss) 03:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Striking. —RuakhTALK 17:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Chuck pointed out that I'd missed two of the sub-variants. :b - -sche (discuss) 03:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Striking. —RuakhTALK 17:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)