Talk:Suffix

message: Missing ized- e.g. robotized, 24.55.106.132 16:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing -ized 

message: I have distinguished between syntactic and semantic suffixes and have named them as "alternatives" since off the top of my head I can think of any that are both.  I'm also going to change the examples to have the same root-word as I think this will illustrate the difference better.
Lou.weird 15:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These (and -ized above) should go in  but I don't know how to access that and edit it - does anyone else? --Lou.weird 13:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Librarian does not fit your pattern: -ian is added to library, rather than -arian to lib. 203.229.115.58 12:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Syntactic v semantic

message: *MERGE- I really think we should merge. There is not a lot of info on that page and considering this is the English Wikipedia I don't think we really need that page. Besides some of the info on that page is already on this page. I tried to redirect it once but the author of the page reverted it.--Cssiitcic (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[English suffix]]. 

message: Therefore, I would suggest to do something with the ending (linguistics) redirect to this page: recreate a separate article from which it could be linked to this article for the English language, when enough information (for a new article) on the endings in the other languages than English is added.
On the topic of suffixes: an article on suffix (linguistics) could include as many examples in different languages, and even language families, as possible and too detailed information could be moved to their own pages if this page becomes too long. And this page needs somebody from the fields of linguistics -> semantics -> lexicology.Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this article currently is that it's far too specific to English, Latin and Greek have suffixes as do other languages. You could also merge in the ending concept here or start another article on this. The rule of thumb with encyclopedia articles is that you should be able to translate an article and it should still make sense; that doesn't work so well if the article is about the English language only.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here on the English encyclopædia, it is generally best to show English examples for various linguistic concepts. I will look at getting some references in order and adding some German and Russian information on suffixes and endings. (ся is a fun little thing) Irbisgreif (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense to describe endings in German and Russian, not English. D1gggg (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: English doesn't discriminate between an ending and a suffix but other languages do

message: The article only gives tangentle mention of suffixes in other languages. This isn;t Engliah language Suffixes; it is a generalized overview of suffixes which should include how they are used in other languages.陣内Jinnai 15:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a list of suffixes. It's somewhat unfortunate that English suffix redirects here, but that doesn't mean every other language should be covered. If linguistically interesting examples of suffixes in other languages are missing, fix it. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  unbalanced toward English language 

message: The suffix -ski/-sky/-skie has been added to many English (AmE, mostly, I think) words as a sort of diminutive or endearment (eg. "brewski", "broski", "Polski", "Russki[e]" etc). I'm curious to know where this trend might have come from and if it is of any note? It might have been originally insulting, poking fun at Slavic populations in the U.S. but it's become, from my perspective at least, more and more common in recent years and might do with some clarification as to its origins. 70.166.129.157 (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  -ski? 

message: While looking for items on Wikidata, I've found that we have two (2) items: 
* http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q102047 for suffix, named suffix.
* http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q719278 possibly for desinences, named Suffix.
What to do?
I'm from the portuguese community, I'm trying to improve some articles, while doing it, I've found this issue.
Thank you. --Guiwp (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikidata item 

message: It has less explanations than WP:LEAD. D1gggg (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  strange Description section 

message: Regarding , -n’t is a suffix marking a negative inflected form in certain analyses, for instance that of Geoffrey K. Pullum and Arnold M. Zwicky in Cliticization vs. Inflection: English N'T. Someone on Wiktionary recently pointed me to this article, and I found it convincing.
Two of the larger pieces of evidence they mention are the following: -n’t can only be attached to auxiliary verbs such as do, is, have, will, should, and its attachment to particular auxiliary verbs creates irregular forms (so to speak), such as will → won’t. The clitics you mentioned, ’ll and ’ve, do not have irregular combinations, though they do have predictable variations in pronunciation depending on what they are attached to, and they can be attached to any word (or properly speaking, phrase): for instance, the kittens’ve been licking rainbows, the kittens annoyingly’ve been licking rainbows, the rainbows the kittens licked’ve been gorgeous. (Bizarre examples, but they are at least grammatical.) Both facts argue on behalf of a suffix analysis for -n’t: generally clitics can attach to any word, and irregular word–clitic combinations are rare. Irregularity is generally associated with suffixes or inflected forms.
So, the article should at least mention that n’t is sometimes considered a suffix. The traditional English grammatical terminology for words containing -n’t is contraction, but I think that’s sort of a non-committal classification: contraction just means an orthographic word that originated from two separate orthographic words. Whether the components of the contraction are words or clitics or suffixes, that is a separate question. I don’t recall hearing the term clitic when I learned English grammar, so perhaps traditional grammar doesn't care to distinguish. — Eru·tuon 09:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it cannot be added generally, whereas ing is universal for non-defective verbs and that it causes irregular terms like won't, when -est does not, are strong arguments that this is a clitic, not a suffix.  Plus, you yourself are arguing that this is a minority view supported by one analysis.  You can add a separate section, but it can't simply be shoe-horned in with universally recognized suffixes. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   I was planning to add a citation and an explanation that it is not universally accepted as a suffix, but you reverted me rather quickly. Admittedly, I got distracted halfway through. — Eru·tuon 05:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, the fact that a suffix cannot be added to every verb is not significant. That is true of all of the verbal suffixes in the article. The auxiliaries will and can do not use the suffixes -ing or (past participial) -ed; many modal verbs do not use third-person singular present suffix -s; most verbs with a past participle use only one of the possible suffixes -ed, -t, and -en. So it is quite plausible that a negative suffix would be restricted to particular verbs. — Eru·tuon 06:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with this being added as long as the material is (1) separated from the list of normally accepted suffixes (which trace back to Germanic, while "n't" is very recent) and the analysis is (2) directly attributed WP:ATTRIBUTION to the authors of the paper propounding it.  Unless we have tertiary sources describing such clitics as suffixes as a matter of course and without comment we should be following established usage, not establishing usage.  We also have Contraction (grammar) which should be mentioned along with n't if it is to be listed. μηδείς (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  -n't 

message: this article starts off by saying that a suffix follows a stem. This contradicts the article on PIE roots which defines a stem as containing a root followed by a suffix, so the suffix is in the stem, not after it. So we have a contradiction and the result is nonsense. Which is it?  CecilWard (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradiction 

message: It's great other languages use suffixes and it is true that this article should mention that other languages use suffixes. But unless the example directly relates to how that language affects English suffixes, we don't need a list of suffixes from other languages. I mean, where would we stop? Why not list examples from all 6500 languages? I think not. That's why we have wikis in other languages and that nice little list on the side that directs people to that language. Want Russian language suffixes? go to the Russian wiki! In the spirit of being Wikipedia:Be bold, I'm deleting examples from other languages. This has been done at other articles such as Palindrome. Thank you. Masterhatch (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  English suffixes