Category talk:English combining forms

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
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, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

Empty category. Alternative version of Category:English affixes. Daniel. 12:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep and use. Properly speaking, I think there is a difference between a combining form and an affix; IIRC — and someone please correct me if I'm wrong — affixes only attach to words, whereas combining forms can attach to other combining forms (e.g., geology = geo- + -logy). We use "prefix" and "suffix" as our POS header for combining forms (because we suck at POS headers), which implies that [[geo-]] and [[-logy]] do have to be in [[Category:English prefixes]] and [[Category:English suffixes]], but I think we should have them in [[Category:English combining forms]] as well. (If we take that approach, then [[Category:English combining forms]] would be a subcategory of [[Category:English affixes]].) —RuakhTALK 16:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
keep for now. The same argument would apply to the other languages. The effort to rationalise this class of categories cannot be well-addressed one category at a time. Did I miss a BP discussion on this? DCDuring TALK 16:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
My Oxford Companion to the English Language agrees with you re "combining form" vs. "affix". It suggests that the distinction was started in the OED, and has been followed by most dictionaries... I think that we should keep the prefix/suffix approach (it's simple, easy to understand, and arguably correct), but a combining forms category is a good idea too. It could even be broken down further, for example into Greek vs. Latin roots, if anyone is so inclined. -- Visviva 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Does it make a difference to a user whether a given headword is called a combining form or an affix, besides what Ruakh mentions above? If not, is that enough to warrant a less-than-intuitive {IMO, for "ordinary" users} distinction? Perhaps the category would be uaeful to allow us to contemplate the need for a new PoS header configuration for these. What are hypernyms for "prefix", "suffix", "circumfix" (?), and "combining form"? DCDuring TALK 20:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept for no consensus.--Jusjih 23:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)