Talk:-el-

RFV Failed
Esperanto suffix designed to mean the opposite of -aĉ-. I've found a few scannos for words with the -et- suffix, but I can't find any actual uses of words with this suffix. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything in the entry except the headword says this is a suffix. If so, then the headword is almost certainly wrong. Shouldn't it be -el, as it already is? DCDuring TALK  17:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is an "interfix", we have a header for that (eg, at -o-). DCDuring TALK 17:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a suffix that is followed by the nominal suffix -o. --WikiTiki89 17:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Many Esperanto suffixes are followed by part-of-speech suffixes. For instance, see -aĉ-, -et-, -eg-, and -um-. If -el- is actually used, it is similar. (-el is an unrelated suffix, used in correlatives.) —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it the custom in the Esperanto community to call what I would call an interfix a suffix? If so, no problem. DCDuring TALK 18:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep - it dates all the way back to the Unua Libro, where Zamenhof first laid out the grammar of the language. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have said it's no more problem than the "Cmavo" heading. Does Esperanto even have a word for interfix? DCDuring TALK 19:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's as much an interfix as ĉeval- and ĉevalel- are prefixes. In other words, it's not. It's a suffix that attaches to the root before the nominal suffix. However, in most other cases, such as -in-, the entry is just a soft link to -ino. So maybe this should just softlink to -elo. The entry needs cleaning up anyway, as the examples are under the quotations drop-down. --WikiTiki89 19:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We have ĉevalo as a simple word because it can stand alone. We don't have separate entries for stems. A morpheme that can only appear between two other morphemes would seem to fit the definition of interfix, except for it not being semantically empty. Does linguistics lack a word for this? DCDuring TALK 20:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * -el- does not occur without -o in the same way that ĉeval- does not occur without -o. --WikiTiki89 20:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But don't all roots, and therefore presumably all suffixes as well, have an inherent part of speech? 00:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say no. But I'm no Esperantist. --WikiTiki89 02:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem like this proposal has caught on, though mentions of it have been added to Wikipedia and Wikibooks. Me, I'll prefix bon- when I need the opposite of an -aĉo. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

X'd -el-. Left a pointer to a WP article that mentions it. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)