Talk:prefices

prefices
Called a plural of prefix, but as I (Jao) pointed out over at Wikipedia:Talk:Binary prefix/Archive 11, it's just a hypercorrection. With 4,000 Google hits, it might possibly be kept as a common misspelling (I'm not quite familiar with how often you guys do that), but then we should probably point out why it's a misspelling as people wouldn't otherwise get that. -- 85.226.205.36 11:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, the hypercorrect is præfices, not this one. Keep, widespread use as shewn per google. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We have no provision for uncommon misspellings. This is decidedly not common, appearing in neither COCA nor BNC. It is used in books and "scholarly" articles. If we (prescriptively?) deem it a misspelling, then we apparently exclude it, but if we deem it an alternative, then we keep it. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, I just checked the Shorter Oxford (more than 4000 pages) and it doesn't list it. Mglovesfun 23:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the point of our dictionary project if we must be slaves to what the OED says? We'd always be playing catch-up! Equinox ◑ 01:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I might comment on a book with "Shorter" in the title. And does the OED even list misspellings? DAVilla 01:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware that it had to appear in an accepted corpus to be counted as common. Standards are always nice of course, but I think you've just shown the fallacy of the ones you've chosen. The Google hits are convincing to me. I would say keep. DAVilla 01:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to keep it too (and I don't think Bogorm's point holds water: præfices and prefices can both be hypercorrections). As mentioned above, there are thousands of uses, and we only need three to admit a word, so let's at least keep this as a "common misspelling". Equinox ◑ 01:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Potentially, this is a problem. I wonder what we would do with three Usenet citations of a misspelling that obviously isn't "common". DAVilla 01:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not the first time this has come up. What constitutes the appropriate frequency to make something common? What percentage of the total attempts to form a plural do they represent? This one is not common enough to make either of the scrubbed corpora (100MM and ~300MM words). Google news: <0.3%, Scholar <0.4%, Groups < 0.7%, Web < 0.1%. Is there anyone with some more comprehensive or appropriate facts, or logical argument, or decision criteria? DCDuring TALK 02:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I should like to invoke the mistake–error distinction: mistakes being things like typos and lapsūs calami, which don’t deserve entries unless they’re extraordinarily common; errors being things like mistaken formations and rule-conflations, which need proscriptive entries to put users right. clearly belongs to the latter category, so this is a verification issue; it has been RfV’d, which challenge it will undoubtedly pass. Keep and proscribe per the reasons I gave some minutes ago in the RfV discussion. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 08:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, if RfV passes, per Doremítzwr. bd2412 T 15:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep, if someone has little enough shame to add three citations to the entry, and mark it non-standard. —Michael Z. 2009-03-30 16:00 z 

Keep; Although it may be nonstandard for mainstream English, it appears to be common among mathematical and computing texts, judging by a strict b.g.c search for "prefices" without allowing "prefixes". I got 618 hits, although admittedly some seem to be duplicates or (poor) translations. --EncycloPetey 19:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Kept. RFV discussion is ongoing, and entry already has rfv tag instead of rfd.—msh210 ℠  23:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RFV discussion
Plural form of. Not so; is not a third-declension Latin noun. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The etymology doesn't matter; the form is used.
 * 1981: Reiner Luckenbach, Beilsteins Handbuch der organischen Chemie‎ (English edition), page 1571
 * The names used in the index...are different from the systematic nomenclature used in the text only insofar as Substitution and Degree-of-Unsaturation Prefices are placed after the name (inverted), and all configurational prefices and symbols...are omitted.
 * I get over 600 b.g.c. hits doing an advanced search for "prefices" but excluding "prefixes": . --EncycloPetey 07:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I grant you that it exists; however, it is hypercorrect. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's hypercorrect, just formed by analogy with indices. It does carry a bit of snootiness, but I wouldn't call it hypercorrect.  To be hypercorrect, it would have to have some degree of correctness to begin with. :P --EncycloPetey 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So it’s non-standard? undefined: → undefined: is a correct pluralising pattern for a fair number of words from the Latin third declension; however, it is misapplied in the case of undefined: → undefined:, which renders the usage hypercorrect. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to have missed my final punctuation (:P). --EncycloPetey 07:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn’t; my first sentence was intended as a joke, too. Urgh! Too tired methinks… †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that the (mis-)use is common, do we tag it "common misspelling of prefixes" or "proscribed", or just put a usage note to point out that it is not "correct Latin"?  (And do we allow fices as the plural of fix? :P)   D b f  i  r  s   21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We can only call it "proscribed" if we find published style guides that disfavor that spelling. We don't have to worry about additional spead beyond the words prefix:, suffix:, affix:, and the like, just as mouse: -> mice: has not spread to spouse: -> spice: or grouse: -> undefined:. --EncycloPetey 21:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I cannot find any style guide that mentions this, but I am surprised at how frequently this spelling occurs, even on academic websites and documents. The only alternative plural in the OED is "praefixa" (different spelling, and from E. BREREWOOD Enq. Lang. & Relig. in 1613).  Perhaps we should just put a usage note so that our readers do not think that the "alternative" plural has equal weight.    D b f  i  r  s   09:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Doremitzwr, I think the problem is due to the absence of both words (suffix and præfix) as nouns in Latin, they are simply nonexistent as nouns, but only as participia perfecti passivi of the respective verbs. Someone from the modern grammaticists has decided to botch up this noun from the Latin participle and thus caused the mess with us ascertaining unsuccessfully whether the noun belongs to the first or third declension... The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the OED, (whence  and, more directly, ) does exist in (post-Classical) Latin. undefined: belongs to neither the first nor the third declension; it is a second-declension neuter noun with its case ending removed. Wherefore, its legitimate plural is ; conversely, if one retains the case ending, using undefined:, then the legitimate plural is . *undefined: is incorrect (specifically, hypercorrect) in any circumstance; it ought to be avoided except if one wishes to convey jocular pædantry (as with  &c.). †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 08:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Striking, as there seems to be consensus that this does exist. Thanks, EncycloPetey, for the quotation: I've added it to the entry. Anyone wishing to re-RFV this in the future, be my guest. —Ruakh TALK 12:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)