Talk:-giri
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Sgconlaw in topic RFV discussion: September–November 2022
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Is this a (productive) suffix in English? It appears in Gandhigiri, but that is probably better analysed as a borrowing from the corresponding Hindi word. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- There are several English words using it (chamchagiri, goondagiri, Citations:bhaigiri, Citations:Nehrugiri, Citations:Modigiri and probably more), although they might all be directly borrowed from Hindi. – Einstein2 (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Einstein2: yes, that's why I'm wondering. These words are probably best regarded as borrowings from Hindi. It seems to me that -giri would only be properly regarded as a suffix in English if it were applied to a non-Hindi word (to make up an example, *happygiri). — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Can we analyse it as a suffix, even if it only exists in borrowings? Theknightwho (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- My opinion is no, if all the supposed examples of its use were borrowed 'wholesale'/intact from another language, then we have no cites of it being used in English. We've tended to delete things that were affixes in Old English but only survived into modern English in e.g. names (fossilized), compare the discussion of #kine- above, and we've deleted things that were affixes in e.g. Latin but not modern English (e.g. sug-, the "prefix" added to *gest to create suggest), although affixes found in 'wholesale' borrowings from Hebrew have sometimes been treated as more includable (e.g. -oth). Personally, I'd want cites of it being used as a suffix within English, although I concede it's at least more of an affix than sug- or -oth, since there are at least identifiable parts Gandhi and giri in Gandhigiri, unlike halachoth where there's no English noun *halach or suffocate where there's no English verb *focate. - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Can we analyse it as a suffix, even if it only exists in borrowings? Theknightwho (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Einstein2: yes, that's why I'm wondering. These words are probably best regarded as borrowings from Hindi. It seems to me that -giri would only be properly regarded as a suffix in English if it were applied to a non-Hindi word (to make up an example, *happygiri). — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- There is no requirement in CFI that suffixes must be attested as productive. -ion is an example of a suffix marked as non-productive. This should be closed as out of scope of RFV, and then RFD could be used, where I would vote keep since documenting non-productive suffixes is interesting and useful, and as long as they are properly marked, no one is fooled. Keeping -ion is so much more useful than -giri, but the principle is the same. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Failed: consensus seems to be that this is not an independent suffix in English, but that English words ending in -giri are borrowings from Hindi. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)