Talk:Back-formation

message: : The term is also often used by non-experts to include what, in the field of linguistics, is more accurately called a retronym.
The term back formation is used in the linguistics community as well. This statement isn't entirely accurate—Trevor Caira 14:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm... Do I detect cross purposes? Whoever wrote the first comment seems to have suggested rightly that retronym and back-formation have different meanings that are frequently confused. As Trevor says, both are used in linguistics. However the distinction is subtle and the two meanings, though different are not mutually exclusive. JonRichfield (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm not so sure of the accuracy of this section.  "Utopia" is not genuinely Ancient Greek -- it was coined by Sir Thomas More in the 17th century.  Although it's true that it would literally translate as "nowhere," as More described it, it was an idealized fantasy-land (akin to the more English expression "never-never-land").  So to use the word "utopia" or "utopian" to describe a perfect place, or perfection, isn't really due to reinterpretation of the word, or back-formation in particular.  It's using the word in the sense with which it was intended.
I'm inclined to remove the paragraph.  Any objections?
:(No objections; deleted.) Ex0pos 17:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Utopia" discussion problematic... 

message: "Cherry" is not a back-formation of "cherise". It is the normal evolution of a word taken over from one language into another language, in this case in fact several languages have been influential: Late Latin "ceresia" via Old North French "cherise" into the ultimate English "cherry", through several intermediate forms. It is a natural development that happens to most words.
A back-formation is a neologism created from an already existing original form of a word which by having affixes added takes on a new inflection. Dieter Simon 00:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it is. This example is mentioned in morphology textbooks. This "natural evolution/development" is exactly backformation. The French form was borrowed as cherise, cheris with a final [z] sound. This [z] was subsequently reanalyzed as a plural suffix. Backformation. Compare the words pea, shay/chay (from French chaise/chaize), riches (from French richeise/richesce/richece/richesse). – ishwar  (speak) 02:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cherry 

message: The article says: "Some regard such divergence as incorrect, or as a mark of ignorance. Others assert that a language is determined by its usage and that strictly applying such a principle of correctness would render English a highly irregular blend of Anglo-Saxon, Latin, French and every other language from which it had ever borrowed."  (Isn't it anyway??)
I think most people would judge different examples piecemeal, depending on how long the particular word has been in use.  For example, I regard singulars such as "bicep", "specie" (except in the sense of "money in specie") and "serie" as unforgivably awful, but have no problem in accepting "asset" and "diplomat".  As in most cases, the best advice is that of Pope:
"Be not the first by whom the new are try’d,
Nor yet the last to lay the old aside". -- Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 13:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illiterate, or what? 

message: Disgruntled is an adjective like saddened, not like sad, and 'gruntled' is a word. It's the past tense of the intransitive verb 'gruntle' "to grunt or sulk". The word 'gruntled' was always a mistake. The prefix dis- marks the verb transitive, and therefore allows someone to be disgruntled. One cannot be gruntled.
Interestingly, 'gruntle' was back-formed to mean  "cause to be more favorably inclined".
RoseWill 11:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: dis- gruntled

message: Are words ending in 'aholic' (from alcoholic) truly "back-formations"? and if so, i'd like to see them listed... as they are truly annoying to language pedants. ;-)
:I suppose that the suffix "-aholic" is a back-formation.  But I don't think the composite words such as "workaholic" are, which is a pity because we need a list of words like this. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 12:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other imaginary suffixes are "-thon" (from Marathon) and "-gate" (from Watergate).  These formations are often jocular, and I'm not sure where to fit them in this (or any other) article. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workaholic, Chocaholic etc. 

message: This surely is trolling? So-called black-formation, who is calling it so, does the term really exist? It needs citing its sources. A conjugated noun? Do we mean inflected noun, or uninflected noun? Perceived high degree of use in African-American pop culture? You really will have to tell us who established these facts. Conversate? If there is any substance to this, please re-enter with full citation of sources. Have rolled back and am waiting to be informed of these facts. Dieter Simon 00:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black-formation? 

message: I'm not seeing dystopia as a backformation of utopia.  Topia might be one, but then 1) I don't know of topia being used in English and 2) for all I know, topia is an actual Latin(?) word. --Badger151 05:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Dystopia''/''utopia'' 

message: "Bicep" and "quadricep" - as if "biceps" and "quadriceps" are actually plural forms. GregorB (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My least favorite back-formations 

message: Back-formation is distinguished from clipping because they change the part of speech
Except that back-formation doesn't necessarily change the part of speech, as illustrated by the examples that derive a noun from a noun. 72.75.81.72 (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you are saying: are you saying that back-formation can change its morphology whereas a clipping cannot? Or vice versa? Dieter Simon (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of speech 

message: "...leading to the back-formation pea."
Is this correct?
--Jwitch (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peace Back-formation 

message: The article begins by distinguishing these two concepts, but does not make it clear enough that back-formation is completely unrelated to clipping. The reader is left with a sense that back-formation is a sort of sub-category of clipping, which is quite incorrect. 
Clipping is a phonological reduction of an existing form, where back-formation is the creation of a spurious derivation based on a false analogy, as in graduate : graduation :: (administrate) : administration, where "administrate" would be a back-formation from "administration".  Clipping, on the other hand, requires no such thing (chute : parachute :: ???? : ????) This is why back-formation can change the part of speech (though it need not), while clipping cannot. The former is analysis (though incorrect) while, the latter is simple abbreviation. Fader (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back-formation and Clipping 

message: Don't worry, I do actually understand the article! It's just I've seen someone I know use "derstand" as a comical opposite of "understand" (with "un" usually being a negative affix, of course). I'm wondering how well-known this one is and if it deserves a mention in the article, if only due to "understand" being a rather common verb. Thanks, Ը२ձւե๓ձռ17 21:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't understand... 

message: What about the terms denoting nucleic acid hybridization? 
First, hybridization of DNA was invented by Prof. Edwin Southern and termed Southern blotting. Later, hybridization of RNA was developed and termed, correspondingly, Northern blotting. Zwyciezca (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern and Northern blotting 

message: Is back-formation something that it is considered in languages that are more morphologically regular for given sets of lexemes, or does it tend to just be classed as "back-formation" in languages that have inherited a set of lexemes that is internally consistent, but that do not themselves fit into the morphology of the wider target language (like English can be with certain Latin/Greek lexemes)? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back-formation in more morphological regular languages? 

message: Is galvanization correctly described as a "back-formation", or is it something else?
Luigi Galvani discovered 'animal electricity' and the ability to make non-living animal tissue move by applying an electric current to it. This gave rise to a widespread early 19th century field of Galvanism, the largely quackery pseudo-medical 'science' of applying electricity to the living for fun and profit.  This was so successful that it led a paint maker, who had discovered a new and effective means of rustproofing iron, to term it 'galvanic paint', despite having no evident connection to Galvani's work or to Galvanism. It was a success and the rustproofing technique based on applying a zinc coating is still widespread today under the name galvanisation. Yet Galvani had no part in this, and the name is a most indirect formation from Galvani's. 
Thanks for any linguistic pointers. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galvanization