Talk:-izna

TR convo

 * . PUC – 09:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Metanalysis?
So while I complete agree that -yzna is an alternate form, I think they're worth saving for learners, so they know when phonetically they're applied. I think it should be the same for z- and wz-, as well as others. Vininn126 (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a metanalysis; isn't the suffix (// 🇨🇬), with a palatalising effect on preceding consonants? Compare, from  + . PUC – 13:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * : Yes, you're right. I think -czyzna should be deleted because it's redundant, or you can redirect it to -yzna. It's quite similar to -tion and -ation in English. I've never really understood why English speakers treat the latter as a suffix on its own. Anyway, your analysis seems quite correct, but I'm not sure if we can say that it comes from the noun "ojciec" + "-yzna" with palatalisation. If we compare it with such words as "obczyzna" or "Opolszczyzna", it's quite clear that they come from the adjectives: "obcy" + "yzna", "opolski" + "yzna". Perhaps "ojczyzna" also comes from "ojczysty" + "yzna", so there would be no palatalisation. However, it seems that we should analyse these words independently on their own, because in "obczyzna" palatalisation does occur, but in "ojczyzna" it does not (if my analysis is correct). Also, we should remember that another form of "-yzna" is "-izna" (or maybe the other way around? Cf., for example, -izm and -yzm). But, yeah, I'd redirect it to "-yzna", because I don't think we should treat varieties of affixes as different lemmas, even though there are many such cases here, both with Polish and English suffixes, but I don't feel like deleting all of them, because it would require a discussion on what constitutes an affix and which form is only a variety and which is not (e.g. "-izm" is treated as a lemma in the PWN dictionary, but "-yzm" is not, but idk if we can delete the latter). But with "-czyzna" it's quite obvious that it's just a phonetically altered version of the suffix "-yzna", because "-cz-" is not an independent interfix, and, as you correctly said, it's just an underlying consonant like //t͡s// or //k// that has gone through palatalization. Shumkichi (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * More, it is . It is just after certain consonants, k → cz but cz does not allow i after it but needs y, as also sz, c, dz, ż, dż, ch and rz need y not i after themselves. From, variating without other reason than euphony with , see . The linked -ština  (also -čina in Czech and Slovak) corresponds to 🇨🇬 as in  and , also Ukrainian and Belarusian , and is a suffix “doubtlessly” (Kiparsky Gramm. III p. 270) arising from  + , and I would expect it to be 🇨🇬 but all the examples there are  formations with ; there might be real examples for the Polish pendant I find in Kiparsky that Safarewiczowa Nazwy miejscowe typu Mroczkowizna, Klimontowszczyzna, Wrocław 1956, made an investigation about the Ukrainian and Belarusian uses for toponyms being motivated by Polish unlike in Russian where it is mostly used for names of political or societal behaviours, however I don’t see any Polish examples without underlying -ski, so it appears that  should be deleted (and recreated when someone finds real examples), and  should be deleted anyhow. Fay Freak (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK I have emptied Category:Polish words suffixed with -czyzna, Category:Polish words suffixed with -szczyzna, Category:Polish words suffixed with -yzna for Category:Polish words suffixed with -izna, and Category:Polish words suffixed with -yna for Category:Polish words suffixed with -ina. I guess you can now move or speedy or something. Fay Freak (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was going to do that but you beat me to the punch. Thanks to too! PUC – 18:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)