Talk:-work

RFD
There seems to have been some consensus that "-work" is not a suffix; see Category talk:English words suffixed with -work. However, the apparently similar -man seems to have survived. Can we discuss this one? It seems to me that we are just adding "work" (i.e. compound, not suffix); however, User:Smurrayinchester suggests that it might be an actual suffix, and cites a Cambridge dictionary. Equinox ◑ 23:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly, this is a suffixoid.--Cinemantique (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It may not necessarily be a suffix in the traditional sense, but words it generates pass COALMINE, therefore it probably does too. Pur ple back pack 89  01:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If they pass COALMINE (i.e. can also be written as two separate words) that's a clear argument against it being a suffix. You can't do this with suffixes, e.g. "girl hood" for "girlhood"! Delete. Equinox ◑ 11:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You've already voted, as nominator. Pur ple back pack 89  13:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For a COALMINE situation we generally have two specified words coming together to form one word. For an asserted suffix, there are (by nature) many examples of words joining the suffixed term. To effect the sort of reverse COALMINE to which you refer, wouldn't you have to demonstrate that all of these could be expressed as two separate words (e.g. "clock work", "fire work", "home work")? bd2412 T 16:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. It barks like a suffix. bd2412 T 03:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How does a suffix bark? DCDuring TALK 04:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That may well be the most existential question that has ever been asked in this forum. I would answer, barkingly. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 16:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To rephrase what I think was the question, how do you tell that "stonework" and/or "homework" is formed with a suffix "-work" as opposed by compounding à la ? - -sche (discuss) 00:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Suppose I make a statue out of butter. Following the general pattern of formation, it would be intuitive to call it a "butterwork", not a "butter work"; if I made a horn out of butter, it would be intuitive to call it a "butter horn", not a "butterhorn". <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 14:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, recognised as a suffix by Oxford. Donnanz (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've always liked Michael Quinlon's work. Here's what his Affixes has to says about -work:
 * Some examples denote things or parts made of a specified material, with specified tools, or specified techniques: basketwork, beadwork, brickwork, needlework, fretwork, knotwork, paintwork, plasterwork, silverwork, wickerwork. Others mark a mechanism or structure of a specified kind: bridgework, clockwork. coachwork, earthwork, firework, latticework. Those words in which the focus of attention is on the activity of working are considered to be compounds of work instead: housework, homework, teamwork.
 * That would say Keep, after bringing the entry into conformity with the split between compound and suffix. We should refer one or two of the definitions at work to -work if we are so little-minded as to seek foolish consistency. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a very fine line of distinction in Quinlon's list, almost non-existent. Fretwork - work done with a fretsaw (no etymology, is it a combination of fretsaw and -work?); needlework - work done with a needle and so on. I would lump them altogether under the -work suffix heading. Donnanz (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Almost non-existent"? Maybe in the UK you are losing patience for such fine linguistic distinctions? Do you think it is too much for our contributors or for our other users? DCDuring TALK 17:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough English was born in the UK, unlike myself. Oxford makes a distinction between various types of work, but they all can be treated as a suffix []. That's what I meant. So be it. Donnanz (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but John Washington was also born in England. Funny how that worked out. ;-) <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 14:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Kept: It's been 8 days, no use prolonging the inevitable. Clear consensus to keep; only the nominator supported deletion. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   15:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So can the category for the suffix be restored? (Thoughtfully deleted by Mglovesfun). Donnanz (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? This is already listed under Category:English suffixes, the categorization of the entry didn't change during the discussion.  If you're talking about a category that was deleted (outright, not just removed from the page), this is not the venue; you would need to start an RFD/O for the restoration of said category. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   15:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the reference is to Category:English words suffixed with -work, which was deleted in 2011 when it was decided that '-work' was not a suffix; now that we've reconsidered, I've restored the category. - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, your assumption is correct. Now all we have to do is populate it... Donnanz (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)