Category talk:English combining forms

Empty category. Alternative version of Category:English affixes. Daniel. 12:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and use. Properly speaking, I think there is a difference between a combining form and an affix; IIRC — and someone please correct me if I'm wrong — affixes only attach to words, whereas combining forms can attach to other combining forms (e.g., geology = geo- + -logy). We use "prefix" and "suffix" as our POS header for combining forms (because we suck at POS headers), which implies that [[geo-]] and [[-logy]] do have to be in [[:Category:English prefixes]] and [[:Category:English suffixes]], but I think we should have them in [[:Category:English combining forms]] as well. (If we take that approach, then [[:Category:English combining forms]] would be a subcategory of [[:Category:English affixes]].) —Ruakh TALK 16:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * keep for now. The same argument would apply to the other languages. The effort to rationalise this class of categories cannot be well-addressed one category at a time. Did I miss a BP discussion on this? DCDuring TALK 16:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My Oxford Companion to the English Language agrees with you re "combining form" vs. "affix". It suggests that the distinction was started in the OED, and has been followed by most dictionaries...  I think that we should keep the prefix/suffix approach (it's simple, easy to understand, and arguably correct), but a combining forms category is a good idea too.  It could even be broken down further, for example into Greek vs. Latin roots, if anyone is so inclined. -- Visviva 17:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Does it make a difference to a user whether a given headword is called a combining form or an affix, besides what Ruakh mentions above? If not, is that enough to warrant a less-than-intuitive {IMO, for "ordinary" users} distinction? Perhaps the category would be uaeful to allow us to contemplate the need for a new PoS header configuration for these. What are hypernyms for "prefix", "suffix", "circumfix" (?), and "combining form"? DCDuring TALK 20:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Kept for no consensus.--Jusjih 23:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

RFD discussion: December 2018
This was RFDed in 2008 and kept based on the argument that "affixes only attach to words, whereas combining forms can attach to other combining forms (e.g., geology = geo- + -logy)". AFAICT this has not been maintained at any time—we've labelled geo- et al prefixes from the start—and the category has not been maintained, either, in the entire ten years since then—it still only has <6 entries in it, which suggests that we should consider deleting it as unmaintainable. It is, furthermore, not the distinction the category itself claims is intended: the boilerplate says "forms of English words that do not occur independently, but are used when joined with other words", and geo- is not a form of an English word, it was borrowed from Greek γεω-. If this is kept, we need clarity about what is supposed to go in the category. The boilerplate made me think it was intended to group "Franco-" ("Franco-Prussian war") and "Sino-" and "cran-" ("cran-grape juice") somewhere away from "geo-". - -sche (discuss) 22:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)