Talk:auge-

RFD discussion: January–August 2017
How is this different from the noun ? —CodeCat 17:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's an example of how Nynorsk can be unbelievably complex. There are two words for ; and . There are also two prefixes for derivatives of eye;  and . There is also a verb, also spelt , but no noun. I suggest that you read the reference in the Nynorsk Dictionary if you haven't already done so.
 * There are variants in Bokmål also, where in compounds can also be øyen-, from an old genitive plural, but it's not regarded as a prefix for some reason. DonnanZ (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But why does have to be a prefix? Why can't the words in CAT:Norwegian Nynorsk words prefixed with auge- be considered compounds of  instead? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably because of the two spellings, is entered as the alternative form of, but that may have been the editor's personal preference. One could use the spelling auga, and in the next line use an auge- derivative I guess. DonnanZ (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly possible to change nn to nn, and from a semantic point of view it makes more sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It may make sense from an English point of view, but not to a Nynorsk speaker. Another oddity is that the definite plural of auge is (guess what) auga, which can be highly confusing to us. DonnanZ (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Calling it a prefix doesn't make sense from a linguistic point of view, regardless of the native language of the observer. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , : Let's ask a couple of Nynorsk speakers. DonnanZ (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm, I had to think of that a bit. As so much in one's native tongue, I've never had cause to consider it before. I suppose the point is that the Nynorsk noun for "eye" can take the forms "auge" or "auga", these are not separate words, just different forms of the same word, meaning they are completely interchangeable in every context. Whereas if you use it as the first part of a compound word, you cannot use the form "*auga-", only "auge-" or "augne-" [Whereas *augne is not a valid form of the noun on its own]. So from a Nynorsk grammarians point of view, this makes "auge" and "auge-" two different... hm... lexemes(?) Donnanz writes "One could use the spelling auga, and in the next line use an auge- derivative I guess." Indeed, this true, in fact, one would have to' use an auge- derivative, because there are no *auga- derivatives. I hope this was comprehensible.--Barend (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have much to add, but if would be worthy of an entry if there was no such form as, then I think it would make more sense to keep  than to delete it, as it is still a distinct prefix form of . So for me, I think the question boils down to whether or not  is worthy of an entry if we only had . --Njardarlogar (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for your input. DonnanZ (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a somewhat similar situation in Finnish. Adjectives ending in -inen regularly change the ending to "-is" when they are used as modifiers in compound terms. We don't regard the -is -ending terms as prefixes but rather as adjective forms. But, as such, they still may merit their own "form of" -entry. For example, the word is not categorized as "Finnish term with prefix kreikkalais-" but as "Finnish compound term" or "Finnish compound term with kreikkalainen" if such category existed. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand Finnish, but "-is" seems to be something like a modified interfix between parts of words. But I guess showing it as a compound of kreikkalainen and katolinen (as has been done) is the best treatment. Different methods are needed for different languages. DonnanZ (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate more input, particularly from users not familiar with Norwegian. Angr's question still hasn't been answered satisfactorily: why are the words in Category:Norwegian Nynorsk words prefixed with auge- not to be compounds of the word ? I would also like to ask an additional question: How, in theory, could compounds of and those of  be differentiated? —CodeCat 20:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You should try looking from a Norwegian point of view. DonnanZ (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, it's merely a historically grown form of the lexeme auga/auge and we should handle it thus: 1. Indicate prefix‐form in the head template for languages where they're applicaple. For example:
 * 2. Create a form of‐entry for the prefix forms like we do for any other inflection. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 2. Create a form of‐entry for the prefix forms like we do for any other inflection. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a combining form used for compounding, albeit a trivial one since it seems identical with the base noun. Combining forms that were deleted via RFD: barne- from barn and kraft- from kraft; tron- from trone; these were nominated for deletion by Donnanz. A combining form that was kept: jedno-. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * RFD kept: no consensus for deletion: I count the nomination as bold for deletion and I see no other bold deletes, no other bold keeps either. One pro-deletion vote does not consensus make. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)