Talk:-si

I'm rather surprised to see that the Italian -si is categorized as a suffix. I think it's wrong. It would rather be an enclitic, like the possessive 's in English. Actarus (Prince d&#39;Euphor) 10:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

-si
"Hello, yes i think so. « si » is not a suffixe, it's a grammatical nonsense. I have too baad english. I give the reasons to you in italian. La particella « si » non é un suffisso, è piuttosto un pronome enclitico, come le particelle pronominali atone mi, ti, ci, vi, lo, la, ne. Riferimenti : Si personale ; il verbo ; il pronome personale ; coniugazione pronominale o riflessiva. Italian pleasure is to acculate personnal pronoun. Just see dirmelo (tell me it) it's an enclise of pronoun mi and article lo and « melo » is not a suffixe. And you can find many exemples of this kind of word : dirglielo (dire+gli+lo), dircelo (dire+ci+lo), dirgliene (dire+gli+a+ne). It will be very difficult for good comprehension of italian if you don't integrate the special maner to use personnal pronoun. it's better way to say the enclise form on the article si. I hope i was clear in my explications. Best regards. -88.168.19.131 13:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's a particle or a pronoun, not a suffix, the thing to do is to replace the line ===Suffix=== with ===Particle=== or ===Pronoun=== and with or . But deleting the whole entry without putting the information somewhere else is simply destructive. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I am taking part in your conversation, it is already very well explained in section Italian si (see part 3 « si passivante) ». You can actually remove the suffix -si which does not exist in Italian. It's only an enclitic form appears after the verb as explained in the article « si ».
 * When I get a chance, I'll start a deletion discussion for . It shouldn't be deleted without wider discussion. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)"

Thank you to kc_kennylau for initiating this RFD. The OP's "yes i think so" is a response to the automatic edit summary of my revert. I do think the anons make a good case that isn't a suffix but an enclitic pronoun and that the entry at  should be sufficient, but I do want to submit this to wider discussion rather than just deleting it tout court. I'd also like someone who knows Italian to look at the two entries and see if there's anything at that can usefully be merged to  before the former gets deleted (assuming it does). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, but convert the POS to pronoun and the definition to something like . A hyphen before a term means the term is spelt without a space between itself and the preceding word, not necessarily that it is a suffix. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, and also -arsi, -ersi and -irsi. In fact, italian verb (e.g. : « dire ») is in a lexical domain and « dirsi » is in a fonctionnal domain. The lexical verbs are associated with a position for clitic pronouns (proclitic or enclitic). As described above, clitic constructions and especially clitic climbing is an essential part of italian grammar. It's an innovating nonsense to summarize this complexity in a false item -si. This type of article can only lead readers to be in the wrong and to confound with a suffix. — Elbarriak (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Catalan has similar enclitic particles, but our entries for them are at the hyphenless forms. See etc.  14:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd be ok with what Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV says if it were only used in compounds, but it isn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The rationale for deletion seems to be like this: Italian -si should be deleted since it is not a suffix but rather a form implied in formations like darsi, which results from combining dare and si, and sice "si" is also frequently used alone. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as is or keep as some sort of soft redirect. A learner of Italian may naturally want to look up information about what they observe at -si; at the very least, there should be an entry at -si directing them at si. A usage note at -si may make it explicit that this is not a real suffix. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I invite to implement his proposed change. Based on the discussion to this point, that would seem to be the outcome most in keeping with the consensus that this section can not be kept as it is. bd2412 T 16:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. I’ve left the usage notes since they refer to the enclitic form specifically, but if anyone wants to move them to feel free. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)