Talk:-el-
RFV Failed[edit]
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
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.
Esperanto suffix designed to mean the opposite of -aĉ-. I've found a few scannos for words with the -et- suffix, but I can't find any actual uses of words with this suffix. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Everything in the entry except the headword says this is a suffix. If so, then the headword is almost certainly wrong. Shouldn't it be -el, as it already is? DCDuring TALK 17:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- If it is an "interfix", we have a header for that (eg, at -o-). DCDuring TALK 17:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is a suffix that is followed by the nominal suffix -o. --WikiTiki89 17:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Many Esperanto suffixes are followed by part-of-speech suffixes. For instance, see -aĉ-, -et-, -eg-, and -um-. If -el- is actually used, it is similar. (-el is an unrelated suffix, used in correlatives.) —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Is it the custom in the Esperanto community to call what I would call an interfix a suffix? If so, no problem. DCDuring TALK 18:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yep - it dates all the way back to the Unua Libro, where Zamenhof first laid out the grammar of the language. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I should have said it's no more problem than the "Cmavo" heading. Does Esperanto even have a word for interfix? DCDuring TALK 19:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's as much an interfix as ĉeval- and ĉevalel- are prefixes. In other words, it's not. It's a suffix that attaches to the root before the nominal suffix. However, in most other cases, such as -in-, the entry is just a soft link to -ino. So maybe this should just softlink to -elo. The entry needs cleaning up anyway, as the examples are under the quotations drop-down. --WikiTiki89 19:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- We have ĉevalo as a simple word because it can stand alone. We don't have separate entries for stems. A morpheme that can only appear between two other morphemes would seem to fit the definition of interfix, except for it not being semantically empty. Does linguistics lack a word for this? DCDuring TALK 20:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- -el- does not occur without -o in the same way that ĉeval- does not occur without -o. --WikiTiki89 20:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- But don't all roots, and therefore presumably all suffixes as well, have an inherent part of speech? —CodeCat 00:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I would say no. But I'm no Esperantist. --WikiTiki89 02:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- But don't all roots, and therefore presumably all suffixes as well, have an inherent part of speech? —CodeCat 00:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- -el- does not occur without -o in the same way that ĉeval- does not occur without -o. --WikiTiki89 20:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- We have ĉevalo as a simple word because it can stand alone. We don't have separate entries for stems. A morpheme that can only appear between two other morphemes would seem to fit the definition of interfix, except for it not being semantically empty. Does linguistics lack a word for this? DCDuring TALK 20:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's as much an interfix as ĉeval- and ĉevalel- are prefixes. In other words, it's not. It's a suffix that attaches to the root before the nominal suffix. However, in most other cases, such as -in-, the entry is just a soft link to -ino. So maybe this should just softlink to -elo. The entry needs cleaning up anyway, as the examples are under the quotations drop-down. --WikiTiki89 19:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I should have said it's no more problem than the "Cmavo" heading. Does Esperanto even have a word for interfix? DCDuring TALK 19:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yep - it dates all the way back to the Unua Libro, where Zamenhof first laid out the grammar of the language. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Is it the custom in the Esperanto community to call what I would call an interfix a suffix? If so, no problem. DCDuring TALK 18:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem like this proposal has caught on, though mentions of it have been added to Wikipedia and Wikibooks. Me, I'll prefix bon- when I need the opposite of an -aĉo. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
X'd -el-. Left a pointer to a WP article that mentions it. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)