Talk:-mongering

RFD discussion: January–February 2016
This is used in compounds, not a suffix. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Awmygawd, something can be both a word and a suffix. Especially when most of the derived words are used much more frequently in today's parlance than the root word.  Also, if Ungoliant's actually being rational about this, instead of just stalking my contributions, he should also nominate -monger for deletion. Pur ple back pack 89   15:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I know this isn't a suffix, inasmuch as nothing is actually suffixed with -mongering. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are clearly words that end in -mongering, and they all generally involve selling products and/or concepts. And, for the record, do you feel the same way about -monger?. Pur ple back pack 89   16:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's tricky as we're talking about formation, either stem plus suffix or stem plus another word. It's a mentality question in this case. If monger and mongering are obsolete, perhaps all formations nowadays are by suffixing. But what about older forms? Perhaps ironmonger is a compound of two nouns but hatemonger is noun plus suffix. Bloody awful isn't it. We might have to divide up the derived terms based on when monger became obsolete. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure I understand the distinction you're making, Ungoliant. But even if -mongering isn't a suffix, it's certainly suffixed to a number of words.  Since it supplies meaning to such words, it seems like a perfectly logical thing to define.  P Aculeius (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A suffix is necessarily a bound morpheme, which means that it can’t be used without another lexeme. The word mongering can (i.e. “All this mongering is pissing me off”). Just because it is often used in compounds without a space, it doesn’t make it a suffix. No more than -wall is a suffix because of firewall or airwall.
 * Even if you disagree with the above, keep in mind that mongering is used more often with a space than without. Hate mongering is more common than hatemongering, fear mongering is more common than fearmongering. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Still not convinced about the distinction, even after trying to read up on it. From what I can tell, words ending in -mongering actually seem to be more common and appear earlier in print than those ending in -monger.  There are three forms: spaced, hyphenated, and unspaced.  The spaced forms seem to be the most common in general, but all three seem to have been in general use since at least the 1930's.  Frequency should not govern whether there's an entry here, since people should be able to find a word no matter which of multiple "acceptable" ways that it's spelled, so that's really not a factor.  However, I do note that other compound words, such as the ones mentioned here, ending in -house or -wall (among many others) include definitions that indicate that they are sometimes, often, or usually used in combination with other words.  Someone looking up "monger" would find the same thing.  If you search for -house or -wall you don't get any results at all.  But they're quite common as independent words.  I can't recall ever hearing about a monger or the act of mongering, even though it seems possible to do so.  It seems likely that people will assume that it's always a suffix and try to search for it that way.  Is there any disadvantage in having an entry that either redirects or links to the main entry for "monger"?  P Aculeius (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is an odd one. What about -mongered and -mongers (plural) and -mongers (verb form)? They all exist but clearly they are typical noun and verb inflections. That should not be the case with a suffix, IMO. Equinox ◑ 19:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is no more a suffix than is in, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  and . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not a real suffix. --WikiTiki89 22:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reason to duplicate content in suffix and noun or verb entries. I don't see how the metaphysics of whether a term is or is not an affix matters if the meanings appear under another PoS, unless, possibly, the other PoSes are backformations from the affix, which is not the case here. DCDuring TALK 23:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, but should this entry at least be made a redirect to the unhyphenated form? It seems likely that many users will assume that it's a suffix, look it up with a hyphen, and get no results.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be a good idea &mdash; and not just for this term. It would warrant discussion at BP, though it would seem to me not to need a vote. DCDuring TALK 22:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Aside from the issue of whether it's a suffix, this is really just an inflection of -monger: fearmongering is what a fearmonger does; he or she fearmongers. It can function as a participle: "you're fearmongering"/"fearmongering demagogues" or as a gerund: "I try to avoid fearmongering". Also, monger isn't obsolete in foodie contexts: "ask your monger which fish are in season". Chuck Entz (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Alan Partridge ("We're asking, what is the worst monger? Iron, fish, rumour or war?"). A fairly decent test of whether something is a true suffix is whether "XY" still makes sense if you rewrite it as "Y of X" or "Y that is X": steampunk is not "punk of steam" or "punk that is steam", so -punk is probably a suffix here. doghouse is "house of a dog", so -house is not a suffix. warmongering is "mongering of war", so that's also probably not a suffix. Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete; this entry merely evidences a lack of understanding of basic linguistics. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems a bit harsh,, and you'd also have to levy that complaint against whoever created -monger. Eagerly awaiting your delete vote in the discussion below. Pur ple back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   08:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am perplexed by your eagerness. I didn't know that entry existed, or I would have RFD'ed it myself. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 09:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason I created -mongering in the first place was because -monger existed. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  15:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The OED has as a noun only. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

-monger
If -mongering isn't a suffix (which, IMO, it is), -monger isn't either, sorry. Per the Partridge test above...a fishmonger is a monger of fish and a hatemonger is a monger of hate, making -monger a compound word, not a suffix. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  07:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The OED has as  plus the suffix  and I agree with them. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as above Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as well. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 09:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: if you delete this entry as a suffix, explain in monger that it is used without a space. As far as spelling is concerned, it looks just like a suffix. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be true of every word used in a compound. It would be misleading to only put the explanation in a few whimsically selected entries. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The independent form monger is only as common as fishmonger, which means it is outnumbered by compounds without a space:
 * [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=monger%2Cfishmonger%2Cironmonger%2Cwarmonger&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3 monger,fishmonger,ironmonger,warmonger]
 * Neologism follows the tendency very clearly:
 * [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=gossipmonger%2Cgossip+monger&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3 gossipmonger,gossip monger]
 * [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=rumormonger%2Crumor+monger&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3 rumormonger,rumor monger]
 * [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=warmonger%2Cwar+monger&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3 warmonger,war monger]
 * [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=whoremonger%2Cwhore+monger&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3 whoremonger,whore monger]
 * Ignoring these frequency differences just because the two forms are possible would make our dictionary less useful. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)