Talk:-ствовать

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

@Guldrelokk: Hello. Your work on suffixes has reminded me of this. I think it should possibly be deleted too: isn't there always a -ство noun (often obsolete in Modern Russian) preceding the verb? There would be no need to posit this compound suffix -ствовать then.

Missing entries[edit]

Solved cases: see ru:Викисловарь:Лингвистические_и_лексикографические_вопросы/2017#нравственный

Solved, need tags:

Unsure:

Problematic:

New case:

--Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If it's kept we should probably add it to CAT:Russian rebracketings. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89, Benwing2, what do you think of this? --Per utramque cavernam 09:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam I don't think all words with -ствовать are derived originally from words with -ство. As in many other cases, it has been rebracketed into its own suffix. Adding it to CAT:Russian rebracketings is fine, though. Benwing2 (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Benwing2: Yes, it's possible, probable even. I just think we should clean the list to see which ones can't do without it. --Per utramque cavernam 21:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: That is fine with me. Benwing2 (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Guldrelokk Dunno if you got my first ping? Per utramque cavernam 09:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: No, sorry. бодрство, мудрство, шество are normal words. -умство and -имство are too, I have little doubt умство and заимство specifically existed. властво, здравство, ответство, приветство, присутство, способство are archaic or obsolete to varying degrees. Only участво and повество seem problematic: I’d guess участво existed, but it doesn’t readily show up in Google Books, and повество sounds especially weird.
долженство and especially действо aren’t obsolete either, only archaic. женственный indeed stems from obsolete женство.
I don’t think there is much need for -ствовать (-stvovatʹ), unless other cases be found. Guldrelokk (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Guldrelokk: Thanks a bunch for this. It's a great deal clearer already.
About нравьство / нравство and собьство / собство, which spelling is best? Per utramque cavernam 18:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: нравство and собство, they are attested.
Ancient spellings with non-phonetic yers (in cases like нравьство or царьскои) don’t seem to be treated as Modern Russian here, although they were normal as recently as in the 17th century and cannot be called Old East Slavic either – the period overall is uncovered. Guldrelokk (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  1. I can also think of derivations of -ствовать where a -ство noun never existed or only in the mind.
  2. Can’t be multiple suffixes used at the same time? I can think -ство +‎ -овать at the same time be used. Isn’t -ствовать a SoP? I am afraid though that our templates do not cover multiple simultaneous affixes. @Per utramque cavernam, Benwing2  Fay Freak (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Guldrelokk, Per utramque cavernam It feels like you are trying to turn over every stone and look in every dusty corner for -ство forms of -ствовать words in order to try and eliminate -ствовать. I think this is unnecessary. Guldrelokk, you yourself argued earlier for deriving -логия words from -лог words, even when historically the derivation went the other way. Benwing2 (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Benwing2: @Fay Freak is right in that even if some -ство noun doesn’t exist that doesn’t mean -ствовать cannot be treated as two suffixes. Guldrelokk (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Guldrelokk That isn't the normal practice here though. See e.g. -тельный, -тельство. Benwing2 (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Benwing2: However, I believe that for most combinations of suffixes derivations with ‘missing links’ can be found. It’s impractical to include them all. Guldrelokk (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Benwing2: It's true I'm being somewhat nitpicky, but accuracy in etymological and morphological matters is one of the strengths of Wiktionary, plus metanalyses are a pet peeve of mine, so I want to get this right. Per utramque cavernam 23:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)