Talk:-eyed

-eyed
Not a suffix. Covered at eyed:; we just need to note that it's often used in combination. (Compare haired:.) The entry does have a good list of derived terms that we should keep, but they would do equally well at eyed:. Equinox ◑ 00:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge for exactly those reasons. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The usage note (or a non-gloss definition) would need most of the sense line of this entry. Merge/redirect (to discourage re-entry of this and speed searches to eyed). DCDuring TALK 00:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * keep. We can say browneyed or redeyed, as well as brown-eyed and red-eyed. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 00:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One could argue that browneyed is brown eye + -ed, just like white hair + -ed, right foot + -ed. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One could, yes. But not browneye + ed --Rising Sun talk? contributions 00:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that eyed is a pre-existing standalone word that has the sense required to support the derived terms ending in "eyed". We would then say those terms are formed by compounding, not suffixation. Accordingly, we should have, at most, a redirect from -eyed to eyed. A prefix or suffix does not have a standalone form. (BTW, a compound does not have to have a hyphen to be a compound.) DCDuring TALK 02:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Merged and redirected. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)