Category talk:Hungarian clippings

I'm sorry to revise my earlier view but maybe we could still recategorize Category:Hungarian apocopic forms into this category, with respect to the usage reflected e.g. in a comment by Gheuf on this talk page, the practice that can be seen in Category:Apocopic forms by language, related Wiktionary and Wikipedia entries, and (last but not least) e.g. the voluminous Encyclopedia of LInguistics (edited by Keith Brown, University of Cambridge, UK). I'm afraid "apocope" is simply not employed so widely, even if it could be meant to include the loss of multiple sounds. But e.g. the case of (from ) would stretch it too far. Adam78 (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me to recategorize them. It contains only 19 items. Let me know if there is anything I can help with. Panda10 (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I've changed most of them to "clippings", except three where a meaningful, self-contained morpheme is removed (or more than one are removed),, , and , which I've moved to Category:Hungarian ellipses (cf. ), and except three more words, , , and , as these might be apocopic forms in the narrow sense of the term. (Zaicz writes about the latter: „Alapszava a föl ’felső rész, felület’ főnév fel változata, eredetibb alakja pedig az -é helyhatározóragra végződött. A fel forma igekötői szerepben fejlődött az é rövidülésével, majd a második nyílt szótagból való kiesésével”.) However, they too could be moved to "clippings" if apocope actually affects only short word-final vowels (it seems to be the case wherever the narrower term is presented), as all these terms used to have long ones… Adam78 (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Panda10 (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

template for clippings with a diminutive -i

 * since it's very common for Hungarian clippings to co-occur with the diminutive -i (csoki, mozi, ubi, nagyi etc.), I'd suggest that we create a template (maybe as clipping+diminutive?) and a separate subcategory for them, because now it's rather arbitrary which instance is stored in one parent category and which in the other, and double categorization should be avoided. What do you think? Adam78 (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, sounds fine to me. I just wonder how are we going to remember all the new templates and where to use them. Panda10 (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)