Talk:-bearing

-bearing
In terms like "load-bearing", bearing is just the second part of a compound, not a suffix. --WikiTiki89 18:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * But I need it for god-bearing people! that guy 19:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No you don't. In fact I already fixed that for you. --WikiTiki89 19:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, even though it might not be a suffix, -bearing describes the meaning of the word in 'god-bearing' more accurately than bearing. that guy 21:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that is more of a problem with the entry for bearing. The applicable sense is "participle of bear", which is currently on the bottom of the page. --WikiTiki89 21:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, the fact that -bearing describes it better than bearing is an argument to move the information to bearing, not an argument for creating a page for a suffix which doesn't exist! The word is bearing, if there are problems with that entry, fix it rather than creating an entry for something which doesn't exist! Renard Migrant (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I would keep this as common usage, even though it's not a recognised suffix, but I wonder whether it should be kept separate or merged with the adjective - it should be kept in some form. At least a link from bearing (adjective) exists. Donnanz (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Not a suffix at all. It's a word of its own, separated by a hyphen (unlike, say, -ly). The hyphen on a suffix indicates that it can be attached to things, not that it is written with a hyphen in resulting compounds. We shouldn't have this, nor -eating to explain meat-eating, nor -walker to explain dog-walker. Delete. Equinox ◑ 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per Equinox. - -sche (discuss) 20:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per Equinox. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Eq. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We have ...what is the connection (if any) between -bearing and Middle English (<OE =Dutch =German )? Leasnam (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we should have, although it is a bit more reason to be kept. Since is not a participle of a transitive verb, you could say that compounds with  are not an entirely regular formation and that  must then be a suffix. As for your second question,  is an active participle of a transitive verb, just like PG  was a verbal adjective (essentially the same thing) of the same transitive verb. Since descendants of  seem to have died out as standalone words, we consider them to be suffixes. --WikiTiki89 15:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! Specifically though, how much of -bearing is an assimilation to of earlier  (in the way that -worthy seems to continue OE -wyrþe)? Is there a reason -bearing is chosen over the more semantically transparent -carrying? Leasnam (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * About and, I don't know and I'm not sure it matters for this discussion. About  and , the verbs  and  have slightly different meanings. I presume in most cases  is used, the meaning of the verb  fits better than that of . --WikiTiki89 18:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if we establish that English is the descendant of Old English  (in altered form), through Middle English, would that not be grounds to consider it a suffix (after all it would have its own distinct etymology)? Or would the coalescence in form with that of the present participle negate its suffixhood? Leasnam (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it's a "descendant" of . The fact that it took on its function does not mean it took on its grammar. There is no reason to create a separate entry for the suffix if it's just to make an etymological note; the etymological note can be made at . --WikiTiki89 19:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 14:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)