Talk:-it-all

RFV discussion: June–December 2023
Has no definition, and no example beyond, which I can't possibly believe was formed by adding a suffix "-it-all" onto "know"! . Equinox ◑ 02:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I created this mostly because Spanish -lotodo exists and at the time I was pretty sure I could at least turn up hits for eat-it-all. I do think that know-it-all can be analyzed as know + -it-all, and that the -it-all suffix should be analyzed as a unit.  I could explain why if anyone is interested, but it's not important for this RFV if we can't turn up more examples.  Still, since know-it-all is amply cited, I'm not sure how exactly I would go about verifying this suffix in isolation? There will never be three cites for -it-all because it can't stand alone as a word. But there are three cites for know-it-all and there could be many more. Thanks, — Soap — 05:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would rather defend both this and -all at an RFD. Expecting me to find three cites for -it-all in isolation is an impossible hurdle because people don't normally use bound morphemes that way. By the same logic we could delete -o-. I assume that's not your intent.  But, if we accept that a use of a word with an affix counts as use of that affix, then this passes automatically because know-it-all exists and has three cites.  Best regards, — Soap — 08:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would not say that three cites of a term makes a suffix pass automatically. One term is not enough to make a suffix. J3133 (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I read through WT:CFI extra-carefully just to make sure I wasnt missing something, and I see nowhere any indication that a suffix would need to pass a higher barrier than a full word. Indeed, the CFI criteria dont mention affixes at all, so I wonder if this RFV should even be here. If we decide to go forward with it, though, I'd say it's cited, as three uses of know-it-all imply three uses of -it-all.  If we say otherwise, then we're making up a new policy on the spot, and applying it retroactively to a pre-existing discussion. — Soap — 11:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * DCDuring mentioned needing therethree [sic] terms instead of only one, which was my point (“one term is not enough”). Do you not agree? J3133 (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll agree to it if it's an existing policy that we've used in RFV before and just never written down. I will look for more words, ... do-it-all clearly fits the pattern.  I've held off on eat-it-all because Im not finding it in the sense I expected .... but I'm fairly confident I can find another word.  I only ask that someone write into the CFI page that an affix subject to RFV needs to pass the test of being used in three distinct words, and that those three words do not need to have three cites apiece.  In other words, that we don't need two layers of RFV's. As this is how I understand the reply to my other statement below. Thanks, — Soap — 12:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We would need at least there terms that use -it-all. I don't think that we need those terms to be supported by three cites each.'' DCDuring (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Im pretty sure I could find two other words within the next month if they're not bound by a 3x3 criterion. For example, do-it-all exists, and has much the same meaning as . But I don't want to yield so easily, as this isn't in our CFI policy at all, and if we're making up policy on the fly, at the end of the month people could just say that it isn't enough and we're going to delete the page anyway.  Our current CFI page makes no mention of needing anything more than three cites for a given word, and makes no mention of affixes at all.  I'd say that either affixes should be treated as words, in which case this passes solely through know-it-all, or this should be moved to RFD as should -all. Thanks, — Soap — 11:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We've used this approach before. It is a matter of treating a morpheme just as we treat a word. A truly productive affix would have lots of nonce uses that would not justify entries. DCDuring (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * OK thank you, as above. I trust your word that we've used this before. I only ask that it be written into the CFI page using words very similar to yours above, so that people will be clear on how to handle cases like this in the future. — Soap — 12:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with DCDuring that we need three instances of a putative suffix being used (if all we have are three cites of the term foobar-baz, there's no reason to have an entry -baz because it doesn't exist independent of foobar-baz). And it would need to be being used as a suffix and not a (collocation of multiple elements of a) compound, blend, etc; I agree with Equinox that know-it-all is not a use of a suffix -it-all; as with e.g., it looks like know/show + it + all, not know + *-it-all — compare forget-me-not, which is not forget + *-me-not! - -sche (discuss) 20:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I stand by what I've written, and I still strongly oppose deleting -all as I've said below, but when I created this page I was sure eat-it-all would be easy to find cites for, and it's clearly not the case.  It's the name of an ice cream company I remember from childhood, still in use as a label but long since defunct as a company.  But it stuck in my mind somehow and I was sure that it would be the translation of Fr mangetout and Sp comelotodo.  In fact, it seems the best translation for those words is eat-all.  And Sp lo isnt a perfect semantic match for Eng it anyway. So, while with show-it-all (thank you, -sche) and know-it-all we have two words, and I found a few people using do-it-all, I'd rather just let this go. If people decide to keep it listed anyway, I won't oppose that, but I've essentially lost interest. — Soap — 12:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 21:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)