Talk:oft-

RFV
Modern English prefix meaning "often". If, as I suspect, this refers to phrases like oft-maligned, it's clearly not a prefix. Equinox ◑ 17:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What evidence would prove that it is or isn't a prefix? If this were RfD, I would vote to delete because oft: standing alone is a word of identical meaning to oft linked by a hyphen to a participle or adjective. Perhaps the only evidence that would show it to be a prefix would be evidence that there was a prefix with meaning differing from that of the stand-alone word. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a misunderstanding; a hyphen is what dictionaries used by dictionaries to disambiguate a prefix or a suffix from a word, but hyphens are also used to link pairs of words (or more than two words). This is a case of the second, and the contributor who created this thinks it's a case of the first. It's just a mistake until citations show otherwise (namely, uses of oft without a hyphen). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * oft: would formerly have been in widespread use. DCDuring TALK 22:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That was oft the case, yes, but I think by "uses without a hyphen" demonstrating that this is a prefix, Mg means uses like "oftmaligned" etc. Actually, "oftmentioned" [sic] looks citeable...! - -sche (discuss) 23:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But even if "oftmentioned" and other such words are attested (Citations:oftused, Citations:oftmentioned), would it really be responsible to consider them as having been formed by compounding ("oft-" (prefix) plus "mentioned"), rather than by compacting ("oft-mentioned" minus the hyphen)? - -sche (discuss) 23:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No &mdash; no more than assuming a lawn- prefix because of lawnmower. Equinox ◑ 00:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've deleted the English section, per this discussion. - -sche (discuss) 07:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)