Talk:en- -en

Derived terms
The derived terms section indicates several terms which are, it states, specifically not derived using the circumfix. In that case, why are they listed? (Perhaps they belong, but do they belong in that section, and not in a see also section, if they're unrelated?) — Beobach972 16:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. I’ve changed the entry a little — do you think it’s OK now? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

en- -en
English does not have the "circumfix" concept. Live --> liven --> enliven is the addition of a suffix, then a separate addition of a prefix. I don't think we should misleadingly entertain the heading "===Circumfix===" at all. --Connel MacKenzie 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, languages change. Computer languages change. Language languages change. What can ya do? DAVilla 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not give readers incorrect information? Calling it a circumfix incorrectly dictates that the prefix "en-" must be added at all times in conjunction with the suffix "-en," which is flatly untrue.  --Connel MacKenzie 05:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you must be right. The etymology of enliven and enlighten should reflect that, even if en...en were more recently valid. Assuming it's a neologism, I'm not sure how you would explain enrichen = enrich, where -en does nothing. But to count as an affix requires, I would think, at least three attested examples. And to be considered a new part of speech, the case would have to be pretty solid. I'm open to it because languages do change. But on reflection I wonder if the evidence is there. Doubtful. DAVilla 08:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, this really is an extraordinary claim. Wikipedia has a rule for this: original research. Delete? DAVilla 09:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not an inherently original-research claim; Google en circumfix english and you'll find a number of sites discussing this claim. That said, if we do keep this entry, it needs to be modified to be more neutral, saying that some people consider this to be a circumfix. (BTW, Connel: you're right that en- and -en can each appear without the other, as in lighten and empower, but some have argued that en-___-en is itself a productive circumfix. For example, when the writers of The Simpsons wanted to make up a word meaning "to make big(ger)", they went with embiggen, not embig or biggen. Note that we have an entry for -istic that treats it as a single prefix, even though -ist and -ic can each be used without the other.) —RuakhTALK 14:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then, perhaps this should be moved to WT:BP or VOTE, to see if we want to take on the role of dictating a new type of valid word-formation for the whole English language. Last time I looked, en.wikt: is not considered an authority on such things.  I think it is silly for en.wikt to suddenly assert that the English language now has and uses "circumfixes" (what, for comedy?  Only?)  From what I've seen, the concept of "circumfixes" just doesn't hold, in English, so this would be something of a first.  --Connel MacKenzie 02:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So you're really just objecting to the term "circumfix"? Would you be happier if we used the non-standard POS header "combination of prefix and suffix"? —RuakhTALK 16:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Cute, but my primary complaint is the nonstandard heading "Circumfix", and upon cursory investigation, the use of the term for anything in the English language. Hence the RFD in the first place.  --Connel MacKenzie 04:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Since there's very little evidence that a combination of en- and -en does anything different than the prefix and suffix together, I don't think it really makes sense to have a separate entry. I'd guess that neo-___-ism is more frequently used than en-___-en (so far we've got two legitimate words and one Simpsons word, while the neo- entry lists 5 examples ending in -ism), but we don't need an entry for either since they can be reduced to their separate parts. Pstinchcombe 21:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep in some form per DAVilla and Ruakh's points - even if just to point out that this flows from the concurrent use of a prefix and suffix which happen to combine to make words with a popular ring to them. bd2412 T 20:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The circumfix issue has been discussed further ad nauseam hereinafter and further hereinafter. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

em- -en
These are just a combination of a prefix and a suffix. As far as affixes go, these are SOP. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * These look similar to and . What's the policy regarding these "compound affixes" (to adopt that term from -ality)? It looks like these circumfixes have been discussed here before (see Talk:en- -en and Talk:em- -en). I&#39;m so meta even this acronym (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it, these circumfixes are on all fours with most English prefixes, which are really a base prefix + one of the interfixes ( or ). If those various compound affixes and prefix–interfix combinations are kept, then so should these circumfixes. I&#39;m so meta even this acronym (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Mine's a keep vote, in case that isn't clear from the above. I&#39;m so meta even this acronym (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * When the word is not enlive or liven, it's, formed by adding both en- and -en. Keep, seems like an RFV issue except that's pointless because it's definitely attested. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC) — IFYPFY. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Compare the recently resolved RFV for the English compound suffix : Both en- -en and em- -en pass bd2412's test "to determine the productivity of a[n a]ffix [by] find[ing] uses of that [a]ffix for which related [a]ffix variations are absent"; in the case of these circumfixes, they are shown to be attested by the existence of, , etc. and the non-existence of *, *, *, *, etc. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Kept. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

y- -t
Could somebody at least add an example of y- -t? --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Only yclept it seems: y-. – Nixinova [&zwnj;T|C] 05:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)