Talk:-ibly

-ibly
= -ible + -ly. Uninformative entry doesn't help its cause. DCDuring TALK 04:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And -ably? — Pingkudimmi 10:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete 'em both. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: "it implies that -ibly is added directly to words": to me it doesn't imply that. The OED entry for, for example, despite existing at all, nonetheless manages to imply pretty strongly that that suffix isn't added directly to words. (Our own entry for does seem to imply that it's added directly to words, but that's a result of what it says, not IMHO a result of its existing at all.) —Ruakh TALK 01:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect. —Ruakh TALK 23:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The redirect would be to -ible ? DCDuring TALK 23:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ruakh, is there any entry beginning with a hyphen that you would delete? Mglovesfun (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Mglovesfun: Do you mean, any entry that we have, or any entry that could be created? If the latter, then — certainly, and unequivocally, yes, there are plenty of entries beginning with hyphens that should never be created, and if they're ever created, we should delete them. If the former, then — I don't know. Probably. I'm not convinced that [[-Vn]] is very useful, and I'd be interested to see three words ending in &lt;-fugal&gt;. (Not that I particularly doubt they exist, but, well, I'd like to see them.) But I'm not aware of any currently-extant entries that start with hyphens and that I am confident should be deleted. —Ruakh TALK 00:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @DCDuring: Yes, to [[-ible]]. —Ruakh TALK 00:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I just don't get it. Who do such entries help, and how? I find the opposite - it implies that -ibly is added directly to words, which is not the case. All such cases are by suffixing with -ible then with -ly. Or I suppose, just with -ly. I'm sure you have a very well thought-through argument, as you always do. What I don't know, is what it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me why -ible + -ly = -ibly? Neither the spelling nor the pronunciation is quite what I would have expected. I don't think it's enough to say X = Y + Z and just leave it to Providence to decide what Y and Z are. Otherwise we can say that "hot dog" is SOP, its parts being "hot" and "sausage commonly served on a bun".
 * "-ible" + "-ly" is a shorthand way of referring to "all English terms ending in 'ible'" to which "-ly" is suffixed in English. We've heard my diachronic supremacy argument before. We've heard your pronunciation supremacy argument before. I suppose we could have the entries as folks will constantly try to say that "-ibly" is/has been productive in English. Maybe there have been instances. At present we don't have any use of -ibly in . But there was accustomably. DCDuring TALK  02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: "We've heard your pronunciation supremacy argument before": I thought you had, but Mglovesfun asked me to repeat it. Was I to say no? :-P  —Ruakh TALK 03:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just wanted you to know that I heard and remembered it.
 * But -ibly is not a morpheme. I suppose an entry for it has a role analogous to our common misspelling entries even though it doesn't seem to be or have ever been productive. DCDuring TALK 05:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I abstain dubitablely. DAVilla 06:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose I just plain disagree then; I can't imagine when I was younger I would see forcibly and then look up -ibly to work out what it means. If it's not added directly to words (and it seems we all agree) should we have usage notes saying "this isn't an English suffix, but can occur at the end of words" or something? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That wasn't sarcastic btw (I forgot, no tone of voice on Internet forums). What you're saying is the pronunciation and spelling are interesting, but it's not used to forms English words. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is used to form English words; but it's not appended to existing words to form new ones. Rather, it replaces the adjectival suffix -ible, and forms corresponding adverbs. By the way, your point about "forcibly" is an argument against including any affix entries at all: we include "merciful", so why include "-ful"? —Ruakh TALK 15:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not used to form English words, it appears as the final letters of English words. Seriously though, you seem to be pretty confident this isn't a suffix, and you're the only one arguing to keep this. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I take it your argument would apply to -fulness (like usefulness) as the spelling and pronunciation aren't interesting enough. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I think you're contradicting yourself by saying it is used, as above that you're arguing that usage doesn't matter as long as the spelling and pronunciation are interesting. Couldn't this apply to -cede? While no English words are forms using it, the pronunciation could be considering interesting, thus negating the need for it to exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is used. Period. To claim otherwise is facile. You're trying to redefine "used", and then you say that I'm contradicting myself because I say that it's used without saying that it meets your redefinition of "used". I'm not contradicting myself, I'm contradicting you. —Ruakh TALK 15:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is used as the final four letters of words such as 'forcibly'. It is not a suffix. You have also not addressed why I think you are contradicting yourself. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rrg. There's nothing to address. You claim that I'm "arguing that usage doesn't matter as long as the spelling and pronunciation are interesting"; but in fact, I make no such argument. Obviously we shouldn't include something that's never used; hence the attestation requirement of the CFI. If you want to put words in my mouth, I can't stop you — L-rd knows EP never got you to stop putting words in his — but it's not going to accomplish anything. —Ruakh TALK 16:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How would your argument relate to -cede. My interpretation of your argument is that -cede and -ibly are the same. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At the risk of stating the obvious, nobody has a clue what your on about so I'm trying to use examples to find out where the boundaries lie between useful and not useful. Note, I've added my suggested usage notes to the two entries. I have no idea what X = Y + Z refers to in this context, and as for Providence, do you mean one of the cities or one of the Gods? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Quoting: "bviously we shouldn't include something that's never used" and "It is used. Period". So where is this used, and by who? I don't understand why you aren't answering these questions? You're confusing 'putting words in your mouth' with 'interpretting what you're saying'. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I understand, you are taking the view that an ending should be included if and only if there exist words like, where  is an English word and  is formed directly from  by adding . DCDuring seems to be taking more or less the same view, except that as I understand it, he adds the additional restriction that  shouldn't count as  +  if it's on the model of a French  =  + . Is that all correct? This approach has the advantage that it can be enforced via WT:RFV: either such words exist, or they don't. It's basically an extension of WT:CFI.
 * I, by contrast, am taking the view that an ending should not be included unless there exist words like  that end in it (per WT:CFI, more or less), and should not be included unless there's something useful to say about it (per WT:CFI, more or less). It needs to be a real ending; I'm just open to more kinds of evidence of reality than merely "is appended to existing words to form new words".
 * In the case of, I don't feel strongly that it should be deleted, but I also don't feel particularly that it should be kept. There's not much useful to say about : it doesn't seem to have any meaning in English, SFAICT no words are formed from it in English (unless you count and/or misspellings), and the words formed using it don't have any common properties that an English-speaker would recognize.
 * In the case of endings like and  and  and so on, that are formed from two sub-endings, I think we should apply normal sorts of RFD logic to decide if they're SOP.  is probably SOP (at the time I argued "weak keep", and I'm still fine with the redirect, but in retrospect  is really the default suffix for forming nouns from adjectives, so the lack of * and * doesn't mean there's anything special about ),  is almost certainly not SOP (since English doesn't generally change /k/ to /s/ that way; it's like how  is idiomatic because of its strange fixed grammar even though its meaning is that of its component words), and  is in a grayer area (I don't know why we say "possibly" rather than *"possiblely", but it's not as bizarre a transformation as the change of /k/ to /s/). Though from DCDuring's perspective I suppose  might be slightly better than, because at least words using the former are all formed in English without influence from French or Latin or Greek. :-P
 * —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 17:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is what I'm arguing for some entries, though not for this one. I would apply that logic to -eau: which I created in 2009 and then voted delete against my 'own' creation. I do think suffixes can be sum of parts, as you say. I don't disagree with that but. The only point therefore I disagree on is that such entries should only be deleted if they're SoP. Usage can't be 'ignored'. I think we just disagree on wha usage means. I wouldn't count 'forcibly' as a use of -ibly but rather as . Oddly enough, your argument means wha I thought it meant, I was just hoping you had something a bit stronger. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that "forcibly" is "forcible" + "-ly"; but that doesn't mean it doesn't use "-ibly". A single word can have — probably usually does have — multiple sources and influences. "I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords" is a use of "I, for one, welcome our new ___ overlords", even though syntactically it's "I" + "for one" + "welcome our new robot overlords". "North wind" is a use of Modern English "north" and of "wind", even though etymologically it originated as a single word long before the Modern English period. The uses of "is" are simply uses of an inflected form of "be", even though etymologically the two words are unrelated (and even though some senses of "be" don't have an inflected form *"is"). —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 18:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I err on the side of keep. It is unobvious to me that "-ibly" is a mere straightforward "-ible" + "-ly". From what I have seen in Category:English words suffixed with -ly, the suffix "-ly" does not tend to remove parts that precede it. The words "fragilely", "infantilely", "minusculely", "prehensilely", "purplely", "servilely", "virilely" and "volatilely" are examples showing that "-ly" does not necessarily eat preceding letters "-le". OTOH, "singly", and "simply" are examples of "-ly" seemingly eating the preceding "-le". From what I can recall, it is uncommon in English for a suffix to eat some preceding letters or morphemes, but I will gladly stand corrected by beign shown that it is actually fairly common and expected. --Dan Polansky 00:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or redirect (to -ible). - -sche (discuss) 02:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Kept with no consensus to delete. DAVilla 06:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Unproductive, questionable suffix
I’ve taken a stab at condensing the above discussion (and adding a bit of elaboration) in the Usage notes – see this revision, for instance. The previous:
 * “This is not a proper suffix, but rather the final four letters of some English words.”

…was a bit puzzling, so I read the discussion and had a think.

As I understand it, there are two points: Regarding unproductiveness, I’ve added this to Category:English unproductive suffixes, and added a note to that effect, but note that it is not completely unproductive – for example seems a Modern English formation, and is interpreted as suffixing.
 * This is not generally productive in English.
 * It’s not a distinct suffix.

To the “not a distinct suffix” point, I think the underlying point is it just looks like a family of blends, based on the sounds corresponding to “ble”, and the morpheme, not a separate morpheme. For example, and  have the same “ble” + “ly” = “bly” sound change. I’ve added a note to this effect. I think this form is common enough and regular enough (unlike the Germanic -le: (Etymology 2) + undefined: = undefined: of undefined: and undefined:) that a significant fraction of people will recognize this as a distinct suffix in some sense, so I’d suggest retaining the entry.


 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)