Talk:-cký

Czech suffix
I was a little hesitant when creating this entry. Slovník afixů says "bývají ... popisována", which sounds like they take a distance from that manner of analysis, and their taking distance is reinforced by "-cký" being absent from the headword list, i.e. from "-ký/-oký/-eký/-iký/-ec-ký/-(n)ic-ký". An alternative analysis, instead of americký = Amerika + -cký, would be Amerika + k/c + -ký, or the like. What is their analysis for belgický? With -cký, we get belgický = Belgie + -cký or we could also have Belgie + -ický. How would Belgie + -ký ever make sense? I have no idea what their analysis is for e.g. logický, a word which I cannot find covered in any entry of Slovník afixů. Be it as it may, I think this -cký entry can stay as a provisional solution that is backed at least a little by at least one source. See also Talk:-ický. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The notion that -ský, when after k, consumes the k and becomes -cký has an analogue: -ština, when after k, would consume the k and become -čtina. However, Slovník afixů has neither -ština nor -čtina, and covers the words in which these putative suffixes are implied (e.g. slovenština and řečtina) in its entry.

Another case worthy of comparison would be the putative suffix -čan, e.g. in Američan = Amerika + -čan, but also Angličan = Anglie + -čan. Slovník afixů has this covered in, including Angličan. For -čan we have no -šan which could have consumed the k to become -čan. If we accept -čan in Američan, it seems we would have to accept -ňan in Brňan from Brno, -řan in Alžířan from Alžír, -žan in Pražan from Praha, etc. The analysis that Slovník afixů probably made is that certain final consonants undergo a shift when suffixing takes place, and that this shift should not be accounted for as part of the suffix. For another instance of this phenomenon, we probably do not want to analyze oční as oko + -ční but rather as oko + k/č + -ní. In the case of Anglie, it could be first rendered phonetically as Anglije, and then j would shift to č before -an is appended.

A link noting the changes taking place at the suffix attachment location:
 * Sufix, czechency.org

Given the above analysis pointing out consonant changes upon suffixing, should we abandon -cký in favor of -ký? I don't think so: rather, the core underlying suffix seems to be -ský. Should we then abandon -cký in favor of -ský? I don't know; the fact that not only the final consonant was modified but also the suffix makes this a little different case from -čan or -ční. Either way, -cký seems open to discussion and not a clear case.

Some more links:
 * Humanistická čeština, czechency.org: mentions -cký in the following: "U názvů vlastností se vyhraňuje distribuce základních sufixů ‑ost a ‑ství/‑ctví: druhý odvozuje jen od adj. na ‑ský/‑cký (sousedství, řečnictví)."
 * Tvoření přídavných jmen od jmen zeměpisných, prirucka.ujc.cas.cz: mentions -cký in "U jmen zakončených na -c a -k dochází ke splývání hláskových skupin na hranici základu slova a přípony: -c, -k + -ský → -cký: Olomouc – olomoucký, Peruc – perucký, Nepomuk – nepomucký."

--Dan Polansky (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)