Timeline for Is there a word for when suffixes are overly co-opted into new words?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 29, 2020 at 18:53 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 2, 2020 at 3:06 | |||||
| Apr 29, 2020 at 18:44 | vote | accept | Zaya | ||
| S Apr 29, 2020 at 18:44 | history | bounty ended | Zaya | ||
| S Apr 29, 2020 at 18:44 | history | notice removed | Zaya | ||
| Apr 28, 2020 at 20:12 | comment | added | jsw29 | So, the question asks whether there is a name for the linguistic phenomenon in which (1) the ending of some word starts being used as a suffix, (2) the meaning of the suffix is derived from that word, and (3) the meaning of the suffix could never be discerned apart from its association with that word. Is this a fair reformulation? (The word merging in the current formulation of the question may be confusing.) | |
| Apr 28, 2020 at 7:03 | answer | added | tblue | timeline score: 2 | |
| S Apr 28, 2020 at 5:35 | history | bounty started | Zaya | ||
| S Apr 28, 2020 at 5:35 | history | notice added | Zaya | Draw attention | |
| Apr 28, 2020 at 5:34 | history | edited | Zaya | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added another example
|
| Apr 16, 2020 at 1:52 | comment | added | Barmar | It's probably also related to the use of the -gate suffix to refer to any scandal, by extension from Watergate. | |
| Apr 16, 2020 at 1:50 | comment | added | Barmar | this answer at that site uses the term "prosody analogy" | |
| Apr 16, 2020 at 1:48 | comment | added | Barmar | Linguistics would probably be a better place to ask this | |
| Apr 15, 2020 at 21:27 | comment | added | Jason Bassford | @Zaya A literal translation would be "the character (ic) of being totally (hol) chocolate (choco)." | |
| Apr 15, 2020 at 21:23 | comment | added | Jason Bassford | @Zaya Except that alcoholic is a combination of (1) alcohol and (2) ic; hol isn't being added in. With chocoholic however, we see (1) a shortened version of chocolate, (2) hol, which is defined as a "combining form," and (3) ic again. (It's not actually the suffix "holic.") The formation of alcoholic seems expected. On the other hand, since neither chocolateic nor chocolitic would appear reasonable to me (simply based on words I'm familiar with), there was that shortening and use of the intermediary combining word. | |
| Apr 15, 2020 at 20:14 | comment | added | Zaya | @JasonBassford I agree, "-ic" is being used correctly. But the "-hol-" preceding it is what is being coopted in my example. | |
| Apr 15, 2020 at 20:13 | history | edited | Zaya | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
clarity
|
| Apr 15, 2020 at 19:48 | comment | added | Jason Bassford | The word ic is a word that's used as a suffix; it's purpose is to use it grammatically. There is no such thing as its being "overly co-opted into new words." That's how it's supposed to be used. | |
| Apr 15, 2020 at 8:30 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 28, 2020 at 5:40 | |||||
| Apr 15, 2020 at 7:44 | comment | added | Andrew Leach♦ | What do you mean by "suffix merging"? The noun alcoholic has a different meaning from the adjective alcoholic, so your meaning of -ic is suspect here. [I suspect the actual answer is something like production, from productive — see Lexico 1.4 — but production seems to be rather awkward.] | |
| Apr 15, 2020 at 6:05 | comment | added | user 66974 | What do you mean by “etymological term”? | |
| Apr 15, 2020 at 4:47 | history | asked | Zaya | CC BY-SA 4.0 |