Talk:Libfix

pal

Languages Low‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

As I wrote elsewhere I'm not sure cases like -cast really count. I see clearly how they're related to libfixes, but I think when they line up with existing morpheme boundaries they should probably be definitionally excluded. Kylebgorman (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure either. Is it enough that they line up with existing morpheme boundaries? Or do they also need to follow the semantics of the morpheme? "Cast" is certainly a morpheme, but it doesn't mean "broadcast", even after being used in compounds like 'newscast', 'webcast', etc. You can't say "I saw a cast on the web yesterday". I wonder if there's a consensus on terminology. --Macrakis (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think, at least as far as I'm concerned the semantic generalization or change is not uninteresting but it's not clear that they've been "liberated" in the relevant sense. No, I don't think there's a consensus yet about these guys, but I suspect most linguists would agree they're not canonical examples. Kylebgorman (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've written about this yet but I'm skeptical of the term used when they are attached, at least in English, to non-bases. This would exclude -on (electr-, prot- etc., are not free-standing words) -ase, -oma and many other of what you might call neo-Greco formatives. Kylebgorman (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what are those morphemes? They're not valid Greek or even neo-Greek morphemes. --Macrakis (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a term for them yet: once again, they are interesting, and new, but I'm not sure they're canonical examples of what Zwicky had in mind.Kylebgorman (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That English bottom section is quite the suffixpalooza! SteubenGlass (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the inclusion of "alt-" on this page. In both listed cases (alt-rock and alt-right) it seems like just an abbreviation/clipping, given that "alternative rock" and "alternative right" are both common forms. fourths~! (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is "-oholic"/"-aholic" another example, from "alcoholic" to "workaholic," "shopaholic," "chocoholic"? Mwphil (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Re: Yep, it's the same instance, since "alco" couldn't exist without "holic" before those other words were formed. 2A01:11DF:20F:4A00:FC00:A726:57:C28F (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the criticism section actually fitting here? It seems to me that every linguistic feature that is a novelty will always find its place within prescriptivism, so a "Criticism" section would as well be present in every article about a new thing in language. I propose moving this into a different article that talks about prescriptivist stances in that context. 2A01:11DF:20F:4A00:FC00:A726:57:C28F (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]