Talk:-логия

I doubt this is a suffix in Russian. At least derived terms are incorrect. I guess the Russian Wiktionary realized that.--Dixtosa (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

RFD discussion: April–December 2018
. Guldrelokk (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this. is a suffix in its own right; agentive nouns in  are more likely backformed from  than the other way around. (Compare  from,  from ,  from , etc.) Benwing2 (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a matter of etymology: I am not aware of descriptions treating as a suffix. Diachronically  has been back-formed from, as should be pointed out in entries; synchronically  is , and that’s why  exists. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would wager there are words in without the corresponding agentive nouns in ; also, it is certainly a matter of opinion whether  is synchronically formed from  or vice-versa, and in general I am loath to make synchronic analyses that disagree with the diachronic analysis unless there's a good reason to. Benwing2 (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are no such words, and it is not at all a matter of option. is a derivative of  and not vice versa, as follows from the word structure. I do not think you can find such an account anywhere. Guldrelokk (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I said there are no such words: I forgot about the second sense of -logy. There are words like and, but they contain  too, as can be seen from adjectives like. Guldrelokk (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO, that is not probative, any more than claiming we can analyze -logy into -log + -y because we can similarly form adjectives in -logical in English. Benwing2 (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not understand English morphology very well. This is a perfectly good reason to analyse -логия into -лог-ия, because -логический is not derivable from -логия. Stems in -лог form clusters of derivatives. Thus all descriptions treat -логия as -лог-ия. Likewise, doesn’t have a corresponding, but there are other words from the same stem, like , and they show that  is a suffix here, as Wiktionary agrees. Guldrelokk (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The basic morphological principles are the same across languages. Your example of химия is a good one; this is properly analyzed as follows:
 * In other words, хими́ческий is formed by adding -и́ческий directly onto хи́мия, and the rules of derivation for -и́ческий say that if added to words ending in -ия, that suffix is deleted. Another similar example is гармони́ческий = гармо́н(ия) + -и́ческий. Given that there's no such word as *хим or гармо́н, the analysis хим + -и́ческий or гармо́н + -и́ческий is impossible (although such an analysis does apply to e.g. ритми́ческий = ритм + -и́ческий and цилиндри́ческий = цили́ндр + -и́ческий). This similarly means that гармо́ния should not be analyzed as *гармо́н + -ия; rather, гармо́ния is probably a direct borrowing from (Old?) French harmonie or Latin harmonia (or perhaps 🇨🇬), with the form of the word influenced by the existing suffix, and all words with the stem гармон- in them are either formed from гармо́ния or are themselves direct borrowings of foreign words (e.g. is probably a direct borrowing of 🇨🇬 + -овать, alternatively analyzable synchronically as гармо́н(ия) + -и́ровать). This means that there's no problem analyzing words in -логи́ческий as something-лог(ия) + -ический, and logically this makes sense because e.g. генеалоги́ческий "genealogical" means "related to генеало́гия (genealogy)" and not "*related to генеало́г (genealogists)". This should be made clearer in English where there's no such word as "*genealog" and "genealogical" is necessarily "genealog(y) + -ical", but the same principles can and do apply in Russian. Benwing2 (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly because -ия gets deleted it is a suffix. Гармония is the motivating word for гармонический, but they are not formed from each other: both suffixes can be widely seen elsewhere, and here they share a common stem, гармон-. So do гаплолог-ия and гаплолог-ический. Гармония - гармонический and гаплология - гаплологический are in the same relation, so there is no need to posit -логия as dictinct from -лог-ия. There is a good reason nobody does that.
 * As for what was directly borrowed and what was not, that doesn’t matter. Native speakers have no idea: they only have idea about synchronic relations. Guldrelokk (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As for what was directly borrowed and what was not, that doesn’t matter. Native speakers have no idea: they only have idea about synchronic relations. Guldrelokk (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a good treatment of derivation in Русская грамматика-80.

Highly elaborated dictionaries by both Тихонов and Ефремова divide -логия into -лог-ия. I do not see a reason to contradict these good sources as well as the whole of native grammar tradition. Guldrelokk (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Keep now, I haven’t come up with better arguments. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Czech analogue is -logie. I searched for sources and found two that rank cs:-logie as a suffixoid, so something a bit like suffix but not entirely like it. Personally I find Ben Wing's analysis convincing, and I find it preferable to keep Russian -логия. A usage note could be added stating that some sources analyze this as a composition of -лог and -ия. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus for deletion. Per utramque cavernam 00:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus for non-deletion now. I think Wiktionary will eventually have to decide whether it states morphological relations in terms of words (then there is no -логия in селенология just like no -ия in гармония per Benwing) or stems (then there is certainly a stem селенолог- from which both селенолог-и-я and селенолог-ическ-ий are derived stems), but it’s certainly not up to me. Guldrelokk (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)