Category talk:Russian prefixes

RFD discussion: February–March 2019
I'd like to delete the following prefixes: The problem here is that such formations are productive in modern Russian: pretty much any noun or adjective can be made into a prefix by adding onto the end of the stem (or  if the end of the stem is palatal). Otherwise we're going to end up with an indefinitely expanding set of such prefixes, cf. in, in , etc. The case of  is a bit special as the corresponding lemma is , but the stem of that lemma is actually  as evidenced by plural forms such as  (nominative plural),  (genitive plural), etc. where the  singular suffix drops out. Benwing2 (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * None of these is a prefix. Delete all ASAP. Guldrelokk (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the following:, , , , , , ? благо- and много- are maybe not prefixes as they can be analyzed as благой + -о- and многий/мно́гое + -о-. германо- and англо- are *maybe* analyzable as А́нглия + -о- and Герма́ния + -о-, but this leads to the question of why not англе- etc. as well as the fact that in reality the prefixes англо- and германо- were probably borrowed as such (cf. франко-, which cannot be derived from any noun). одно- is maybe analyzable as the stem of оди́н but одно- does feel like a prefix to me. фото- is maybe derivable from the noun фо́то, but that seems questionable as фото- was probably borrowed as such (cf. аудио-, which cannot be derived from any noun). энерго- likewise feels like a borrowed prefix to me, although it's conceivably analyzable as эне́ргия + -о-. Benwing2 (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleted, along with and . Benwing2 (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * : I think they were deleted prematurely. Although, I don't have a strong opinion about how we show the etymologies - interfixes or combining forms. The forms are useful, at least as hard-redirects as a minimum or, even better, some form of a soft-redirect with usage notes. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Which forms would you want put back? My concern is that the set of actual attested prefixes is a fairly random collection of potential prefixes, with no obvious reason why a given prefix is present or not. Maybe we should keep some extremely common prefixes like много- and благо- and maybe водо-, but I'd argue e.g. that арабско- and африканско- aren't terribly useful. Benwing2 (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * : I suggest to make a soft redirect template, using an "adjective form" or "prefix" in the header. The definition line is up to you. E.g. something like in : +  (a combining form). I would keep all the deleted ones, hopefully using the same template. You don't have to create new ones. As you said, they are very productive. Might as well help users understand their usage and how they are formed. Consider also back translations for such prefixes in English. What do you think? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really like the idea of keeping a random collection of such prefixes that happen to already be in the dictionary. I think if we keep some of them, we should be logical about what we keep. Note that information about formation of such prefixes could be included on the page (it already is, in fact), along with pronunciation of the most common prefixes (e.g. много- and благо- are never stressed, водо- is stressed in some words, etc.).
 * Another issue is, do we use them in etymologies? For example, do we etymologize as  (as I would prefer) or as ? If we do it the former way, the connection to  is made clearer, and the word is automatically categorized into CAT:Russian compound words, which appears correct to me. If we do it the latter way, we'd have to manually add CAT:Russian compound words to all such words. OTOH, if we do it the former way, then there won't be any links to  (if we decide to keep it), so it's not obvious how a user would find it. Benwing2 (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * : I see. OK, delete. I will convert the deleted forms to hard redirects. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you'd rather have them exist as soft redirects, that is OK with me, as long as we don't have to use them in etymologies. Benwing2 (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

-o- and -e- are not interfixes in Russian. They are just the endings of the preceding noun in a compound, and directly reflect the original thematic vowel that has been lost or modified in many other endings. See the discussion below for Latin, which concerns the same thing. —Rua (mew) 22:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This analysis, if it ever made sense, doesn't make sense for the vast majority of such compounds, which were formed when the thematic vowel was no longer transparent. Benwing2 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)