Talk:new-

new-
Not a prefix, AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 15:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's not a prefix, then it means that adjective+participle compounds can be formed freely and productively. new+born would have to be parallel to other combinations with different words. I'm not sure if it is, though. —CodeCat 16:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a suggestion. If someone's a bit aware of Russian morphology, I could parallel this with such words as близлежащий or вперёдсмотрящий: formerly, they were created with two roots, but the left of them has been gradually tending to serve as a prefix. I can't recollect the exact term — maybe "prefixoid".hm. Oh, I could presume that all prefixes might derive from formerly notional words:) Josh L. 15:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It also may be unproductive now but have produced such adj-participle compounds in the past in English.
 * BTW, we don't have any treatment at all in English of the idea of a word being productive or unproductive in combination currently - or ever. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Or "new-" may never have been productive in this way in modern English. newborn, newmown, newfound, and newfangled got their prefixes before modern English. DCDuring TALK 17:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this is a remnant of a formerly more pervasive adverb ? (We actually have such a sense at [[new]], but I can't think of any other examples of it that would sound normal to me.) It feels less prefix-y to me than compound-y, though obviously that's a tenuous distinction. I would write or  with a hyphen — ditto  and  — and then only because I tend to hyphenate multiword prenominal modifiers ("tennis shoes" vs. "tennis-shoe woes" and so on). B.g.c. shows that many writers are happy using a space in such compounds. And of course, many are happy using  here. Personally I think we might as well redirect to [[new]], or maybe [[new]], and add a usage note there; but I don't feel strongly about it. —Ruakh TALK 18:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I think with this sort of affix, the test is can it stand alone with the same meaning. And I'm not sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What additional evidence would make you sure?
 * I have modified the entry to attempt trying to make it clear to non-academic users that this has not actually been used lately to form words, though "new" has. A word like newlaid was a relatively uncommon alternative form of new laid (equivalent to "newly laid"). It is so rare as to seem a misspelling and not a common one at that. DCDuring TALK 13:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If we follow the train of thought which states: "if it cannot stand alone as a word, then it is a prefix", then perhaps it is a compound. More likely though, it is an older prefix re-defined/re-aligned as a compound in recent times. However, if we follow the train of thinking which states: "if it behaves like a prefix (i.e. functions like other prefixes which cannot stand alone--being based solely on function)", then it's a prefix. Functionally, it is no different from mis-, under-, over-, etc. So, which is it then...? Leasnam 15:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be that there were some true prefix formations in EME. If there were a few (whether or not attestable), that would indicate that it was a productive English prefix. We are maintaining the fiction that Middle English is a different language for most lexicographical purposes, so formation in ME (attestation before 1470) doesn't count. OED? DCDuring TALK 16:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For EME candidates, consider newmodel:, newfashion:, newcreate:. All were formed in ModEng (and are still relatively current). Leasnam 19:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither OneLook dictionaries nor Century (1911/2) show this spelling rather than the hyphenated form (if the hyphenated form is shown, as it usually isn't). But with attestation and information about earliest use (ie post-1470) (and recent use?), these could be good evidence confirming Modern English prefixation by new-:. Other possibilities might be solid-spelled forms of new-minted:, new-styled:, new-baked:, and new-leafed, all of which are to be found in COCA. DCDuring TALK 21:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. At Talk:newminted, Talk:newstyled, Talk:newbaked, and Talk:newleafed I have placed (type=books) showing sufficient cites, though I have not created the entries. As they are rare relative to the corresponding hyphenated forms, are they to be considered misspellings (including typesetting errors) or alternative forms of the corresponding hyphenated versions? DCDuring TALK  21:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Having thought about it further, I think part of the reason this doesn't feel "affixy" to me is that it's always stressed: NEWfangled, NEW-minted, NEW-mown, and so on. Admittedly, affixes are sometimes stressed in English — is always stressed (maybe because it's really  + ?), and Greek combining forms like  and  are stressed unless a later suffix causes the stress to move rightward — but somehow I don't think that's the norm. (Contrast Leasnam's examples: misMANage, underRATed, overESTimate, etc. The only thing I can think of that seems comparable is, and that one can also be viewed as forming compounds.) —Ruakh TALK 01:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Stress isn't a reliable indicator of whether something is an affix or not. Already in Old English, many prefixes had two versions, one stressed and one unstressed. But the distinction was not whether it was a compound or a prefix, but was determined by the part of speech. Nominal prefixes were usually stressed, verbal prefixes generally weren't. Compare stressed and unstressed . If this situation already existed in Old English, I don't think we can apply it to modern English. (Unless these stressed prefixes have suddenly become compounds in the last thousand years?) —CodeCat 10:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: "Stress isn't a reliable indicator of whether something is an affix or not": Granted. I don't think I implied that it was. But thank you for the information about Old English; that's really interesting! —Ruakh TALK 13:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether newmodel, apparently an alternative form of new-model, doesn't have an atypical etymology, from Cromwell's New Model Army (1645-1660). Other Modern English "new-" words, especially those recently formed or at least used commonly might make for better examples, even for pronunciation-based reasoning. DCDuring TALK 15:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur: stress is affected by POS, so the verb newmodel: I would pronounce as newMODel, but as an adjective, NEWmodel. Leasnam 13:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

kept, no consensus -- Liliana • 04:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

'Possibly productive in early modern English.'
Hi, could an academic/grammar reference be added to such a statement? Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)