Talk:arthr-
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Imetsia in topic RFD discussion: May 2019–July 2021
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Is this a prefix? —Rua (mew) 15:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- For an Ancient Greek word like ἄρθρωσις (árthrōsis), the answer should be that indeed the word was formed from a prefix ἄρθρ(ο)- (árthr(o)-) + a suffix -ωσις (-ōsis). Modern English arthrosis – not a direct loan of the Greek word, which means something else, viz. “articulation” (of speech) – mimics the way Greek words were formed in ancient times, so for the coiner the morpheme arthr(o)- was “morally” a prefix – and if medical researchers need to come up with a new word for something related to joints, they will surely feel quite comfortable to reuse this morpheme. My conclusion: calling it a prefix is a defensible position. --Lambiam 11:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is that it's not prefixed to anything at all. Prefixes form new words by attaching to existing words, this one doesn't. See also Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2019/April#Classical compounds in Category:English words by prefix and Category:English words by suffix where I argued that these are not affixes, but their own type of morpheme that follows its own rules. —Rua (mew) 11:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- So is there a term for a morpheme that is used to form new words but that does not qualify for affixhood sensu stricto? --Lambiam 21:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- I see that I suggested the term “classicistic component” in the prior discussion. --Lambiam 21:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- I thought "combining form" (from WT:POS) might qualify, but I guess it implies that there is a full word that the morpheme is a form of, so it couldn't be used for English morphemes derived from Latin and Greek that don't have corresponding full words, only for the Ancient Greek or Latin versions of the morphemes. So ὑδρο- (hudro-) is the combining form of ὕδωρ (húdōr), but hydro- isn't a combining form because there isn't an English word (*hydor?) that it derives from. — Eru·tuon 21:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- We could go with a generic "morpheme". There's a category for them already, why not use it? —Rua (mew) 21:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- I thought "combining form" (from WT:POS) might qualify, but I guess it implies that there is a full word that the morpheme is a form of, so it couldn't be used for English morphemes derived from Latin and Greek that don't have corresponding full words, only for the Ancient Greek or Latin versions of the morphemes. So ὑδρο- (hudro-) is the combining form of ὕδωρ (húdōr), but hydro- isn't a combining form because there isn't an English word (*hydor?) that it derives from. — Eru·tuon 21:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is that it's not prefixed to anything at all. Prefixes form new words by attaching to existing words, this one doesn't. See also Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2019/April#Classical compounds in Category:English words by prefix and Category:English words by suffix where I argued that these are not affixes, but their own type of morpheme that follows its own rules. —Rua (mew) 11:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, not a prefix. Canonicalization (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. HeliosX (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Move to WT:RFVN? If there (enough) Latin formations, then keep like English arthro-, litho-, homo- ...; else delete. --20:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:373F:4037:3C6C:85B5:850A:BEA0 (talk).
- RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)