Talk:Affix

message: Question: Is it a problem that there are pages for prefixes, infixes, and circumfixes, but that suffixes get redirected to affixes? It seems a little, I don't know, inequitable.कुक्कुरोवाच 04:23, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: redirects & suffix

message: I plan to start a page called Dimunutive suffix pretty soon and it will include info from English, Latin, Ancient Greek and Spanish as these are the languages where I can contribute the most.  Please add info from other languages if you can.  There is a lot of info concerning affixes which is sadly missing from wiki.--Hraefen 00:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dimunutives etc.

message: The intro to the article states that affixes are by definition bound morphemes, but the morpheme article gives the example of the free morphene -able. Which is correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.23.4.23 (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's correct to say affixes are bound by definition for the time being as examples of free morphemes that act as affixes are few and far between, and their statuses are surely still debatable. For instance, suggesting that "separable affixes" are indeed affixes very much depends on the morphological theory one subscribes to. Likewise, so-called infixes like "abso-freaking-lutely" are arguably not infixes at all depending on the theory one subscribes to. Perhaps just saying that all affixes are bound is an oversimplification, but I think adding fringe examples as evidence that they are not all bound confuses the definition and weakens its usefulness for classification. Joshisanonymous (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  affix is by definition bound morpheme? 

message: The following terms need some references:  Duplifix, Simulfix, and Suprafix.  These are not called affixes in the literature, but are almost always called derivational or inflectional processes.  I've never seen the "fix" terms for these because they don't involve adding a physical morpheme.  They are phonological processes that have semantic content (thus their relevance in morphology), but they are not affixes.  "Disfix" should also be considered a phonological process, but since it at least has a reference at disfix and a linguist has used the term, then it can slide.  I've also seen reduplication talked about as a "morpheme" with an empty phonological shape that is filled by the phonology of the root, but not with the term "Duplifix".  Since these three things I've mentioned above are almost always treated not as morphemes, but as processes, then they should be removed from this article since "affix" is a kind of morpheme.  I can be convinced otherwise if there is some reliable (linguistic) literature on the topic.  (Taivo (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-affixation 

message: really? saxo-ma-phone is the best example of infix that anyone could come up with?
Is everyone editing this page a morpheme addict or something?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.251.194.24 (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In all my years of being a native speaker of English, I have never heard of a form like saxo-ma-phone or any other use of "ma" as an infix.  --Taivo (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably the best known infix in the English language is -fucking- as intensifier, but using that as an example might be pushing it.  :-)  — Coren (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We already cite one of the polite forms of the -f...in'- infix--"Minne-flippin'-sota".  --Taivo (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although I dislike the example by default, because it's tmesis, not an actual infix. (Unless tmesis counts as infixing)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.5.132 (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  saxomaphone? 

message: In redirecting Prefix (linguistics) to here, the list of English prefixes and their meanings has been lost. Though I don't think the list would fit here, I think the article should be resurrected for that reason.--Jcvamp (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists 

message: What is the proper term? We have both confix and circumfix, but no indication as to which is more commonly used or more generally accepted. The confix article seems to have been mainly written with Indonesian and Malaysian in mind, while the circumfix article has examples from German and also mentions other languages with this kind of affix. Which is correct, and should they be merged? Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Circumfix is the only term I've encountered among the languages I work with.  The confix article should be merged with circumfix.  --Taivo (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I first saw confix, but I am studying in Indonesia so that might be why. I will nominate confix to be merged into circumfix. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Scratch that, you already did. Will add my two cents. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confix / Circumfix 

message: Forgive me if I have missed how these phenomena are already included in the typology of affixes here.
How should we classify morphemes that are floating tones?
More challenging, and less well known, there are other, non-tonal, floating features that act as morphemes. James Roberts has compiled a number of examples from various African languages and published an article on morphemes that are non-tonal floating features.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED375649.pdf
As an example, voicing is used to mark a noun class in Aka. How should this be classified?  Pete unseth (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Floating features as grammatical morphemes