Talk:-бавить

Why is this called a "combining form" rather than a "suffix"? Module:headword is not liking the nonstandard part-of-speech category. —CodeCat 16:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't remember exactly why I chose this terminology, but suffix didn't seem right. These are verbal roots, not really suffixes (unlike e.g. -ывать). I think someone on BP or GP suggested it. Benwing2 (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Roots can become affixes though, this happens all the time., , , , are all ultimately roots. This is called grammaticalization. —CodeCat 17:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but these aren't close to being grammaticalized affixes. They're just regular verbs where the base verb has disappeared. Benwing2 (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. These exist in Dutch too, but in Dutch we just have no entry at all for them (since they aren't existing terms). See for example. However, has the base verb been missing throughout the whole history of the language we call "ru"? Just because it no longer exists now doesn't mean it doesn't merit an entry as an obsolete term.
 * I don't like "combining form" for these though. A combining form is a separate form of an existing lemma that is used when affixes or other roots are attached to it. But this term is a lemma in its own right. —CodeCat 18:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If it exists as an obsolete term, then my normal practice is to create it as such rather than as a combining form. For example, I originally thought that купорить was only a combining form but found out from ruwikt that it was formerly an actual verb. There are other examples, though, such as -чать, that definitely never existed as separate verbs in Russian (and maybe not in Proto-Slavic either in this case). I don't know any better term than "combining form", any ideas? Benwing2 (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have any ideas either. But since this is a cross-linguistic problem rather than a specifically Russian problem, I think it would be good to take it to a wider audience. Maybe a consensus will emerge on how to handle such cases. —CodeCat 00:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)