This is merely a compound of two independent suffixes, similar to other such combinations (-ed+ness; un+be-; trans+in-; mis+pro-; etc.). Leasnam 15:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can you provide a single instance of a word of the form "Xishness" that was used before the adjective of the form "Xish"? If this term has never functioned in that way, it is not itself a suffix. The same question applies to all the other things you call "compound suffixes". I do not believe that editors here wish to have such terms without some evidence that the terms has actually been used as in a single suffixation process, rather than being a result of two successive suffixations. DCDuring TALK 17:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, I am in complete agreement with you. selfishness is not self + -ishness, but rather selfish + -ness. I did not create this entry, nor do I consider it valid, although I have made some edits. My statement above was not in defense that it should stay, but I was attempting to point out the superfluity of it. I just didn't want to come outright and say kill it. Maybe I was too soft. Leasnam 18:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
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.
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
So far as I know, we don't have specific requirements for suffixes, so I couldn't really delete it as "RFV failed"; but even so, I think we should delete it.
- Delete per my comment above. Though, -manship did survive and RFD debate. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- If I remember rightly, it was because of some examples such as oneupmanship. I somehow doubt anyone will find something similar for -ishness, but we have to give it it's 30 days. -- ALGRIF talk 11:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete it with a deletion summary indicating that it can be re-created if it is found to exist, à la RFV-failed entries.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)