Talk:-log

RFD discussion
to make an entry, record.

The definition would need cleaning up so someone could easily understand what is intended, but does this function as a suffix in this way or does the suffix form a noun and then, by and by, the noun is used as a verb? DCDuring TALK 15:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Could I just add -log to a noun and form a verb that people understood? ???"I itemlogged everything before the movers came." Really? DCDuring TALK 15:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no requirement that all suffixes listed at Wiktionary be productive, but I too would like to see a clear example of this alleged suffix in use. —Angr 16:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * weblog. But the definition is incorrect though--Dixtosa. 17:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't an affix have been productive at some point in a given language if it is presented as one in a dictionary for that language? Why should it even be called an "affix" if it is never used as one? Is there some definition of affix that we should use that is distinct from a sense connected with actual word formation? DCDuring TALK 18:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Has -en: ever been the productive way of forming past participles in English? If not, does that mean we shouldn't have an entry for it? If -log: is never used as a suffix, we shouldn't call it one, but I just meant in general productivity should not be a criterion for inclusion of affixes. As for weblog:, it seems to be exactly was DCDuring was talking about: a noun formed by compound (web + log) followed by the creation of a denominal verb from the noun. No verb-forming suffix -log being added to web. —Angr 21:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the advantages of covering all languages is that we would have an entry at the page [[-en]], but the L2 header would be Old English, which probably should appear before other languages, together with Middle English. I'd like to keep each of these things in the right location. It certainly shouldn't be categorized as a Modern English affix if it doesn't behave as one. Perhaps -en should be a disambiguation page passing users to the L2 sections for the extinct languages for which the affix or inflectional ending was productive and not vestigial. DCDuring TALK 21:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * -en: does behave as a Modern English affix; it's just not productive. Productivity is not part of the definition of an affix. —Angr 21:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if productivity within a language is not a criterion, then we are missing several thousand affixes, eg -ando, -andi, .... I don't think that is a productive direction for us, but others may disagree. I think thus affixes work fine for English users just where they are. DCDuring TALK 00:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If -ando is recognisable as distinct morpheme to English speakers, and also has a meaning that is at least somewhat transparent from nouns containing it (i.e. is not a cranberry morpheme), then I see no reason why it can't be included. 01:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: If I'm not mistaken, this definition is (or should be) at log Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Used in modern compounds. Not a suffix. Equinox ◑ 16:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. - -sche (discuss) 17:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 10:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)