Talk:Pejorative suffix

Japanese “me” suffix from word for female?

The article makes the following claim:

-me, e.g. furiiza-me "That damn Freeza!" or kawaii yatsu-me "That darn cutie!"
(Possibly from an archaic Japanese word, me, meaning "wife," "woman," or "female")

No problem with the first sentence; but the parenthetic about me coming from an archaic word for female looks specious. Please supply a source for it, otherwise I will remove it. It looks like speculation to me. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 03:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is a much less speculative claim than many others that are presented in Wikipedia as indisputable fact. The Japanese word for female/woman/wife, namely me, was once commonly used as a diminutive prefix (c.f. me-daki, the smaller or less forceful of a pair of waterfalls (literally "female-waterfall"), as opposed to o-daki, the larger or more forceful of a pair of waterfalls (literally "male-waterfall")). In more recent times, the diminutive marker me came to be used as a suffix rather than as a prefix, and it is still used productively as a suffix in present-day spoken Japanese. In some modern Japanese dialects, such as that of Ibaraki, the suffix -me retains more of its original purely diminutive connotation, and it is almost obligatorily suffixed to the words for "small" or "cute" animals (e.g. kame > kan-me "turtle", hae > hee-me "fly", etc.) by many speakers of these dialects. In Standard Japanese, however, the suffix -me has ceased to function as a diminutive marker and is now used exclusively as an abusive pejorative suffix. (Unsigned comment by 71.59.146.70 at 21:47, 17 April 2007 JST.)

Thanks for your explanations about –me and its usages, which are all fine and plausible, but that’s not the problem. The problem is that no sources are cited, so whether it is more or less speculative than anything else is irrelevant: It’s still speculative, and it’s being unsourced means that according to Wikipedia guidelines, it should be deleted.

In that context, your explanation, too, is unsourced, so it shouldn’t go into the article. It could, though, if you could supply a citation or two; do you have any? (This is meant as a serious question, not an in-your-face challenge.)

I have a source that says the pejorative suffix me is derived from an archaic word, 奴, pronounced me also. 「罵詈雑言辞典」奥山益郎編。東京堂出版, 1996. ISBN 4-490-10423-5, p. 314. I plan to add this info in the near future. Any attributable information you could supply would be very helpful. Thanks, and best regards, Jim_Lockhart 13:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you must have misunderstood what that dictionary is trying to indicate. The abusive/pejorative suffix -me is sometimes written with the Chinese character for "slave; unskilled worker conscripted to do manual labor" (奴), but that is merely a form of ateji, and it is absolutely irrelevant to the question of the etymology of the Japanese morpheme, /-me/. There is not (and never has been) any separate word (i.e., a free morpheme) in the Japanese language that is pronounced as /me/, written with the Chinese character for "slave" (奴), and that has some generalized pejorative meaning. That leaves only the productive morphemes /me/ (eye) and /me/ (bud; sprout) and the fossilized or archaic morphemes /me/ (female; woman; wife) and /me/ (seaweed) as possible etymological sources of the Japanese diminutive and pejorative suffix /-me/, and historical literature and dialectology both point to /me/ (female; woman; wife) being the real source in this case.

I misunderstood nothing, and this is not a reference to an ateji; don’t be so patronizing. Note that I’m not asking you to explain further or defend your assertion; I’m asking you to supply sources for it: Wikipedia requires verifiable attribution. I’ve already done so; now it’s your turn; and, if your tone is anything to go by, I’m sure you know that books from 東京堂 are not to be taken lightly.

Further, you say “[t]here is (and never has been) any [sic] separate word (i.e., a free morpheme) in the Japanese language that is pronounced as /me/, written with the Chinese character for "slave" (奴), and that has some generalized pejorative meaning.” My source states the opposite:

◎「奴」は日本語特有の読み方で、「やっこ」「やつ」「め」と読む。いずれも「やつ」の持つ奴隷のように低い地位のものを踏まえている。また、「め」の字は「奴」の字の草書体である。

This is a supplementary explanation following the gloss for め:

名詞･代名詞･人名につけて、相手を卑しめて罵る接尾語。「下男め」「女房め」「三太郎め」など。またかつては「私め」のように自分を卑下して用いることもあった。

Fwiw, 言海 opines that め derives from 群れ。

Once again, please supply source(s) for your statements; e.g., name the historical literature and dialectology works that make these claims so they can be verified. It’s not that I’m casting doubt on your explanations (though I have grounds to, since you do not identify yourself): this is part of the Wikipedia process of ensuring the quality of information; see WP:ATT for details. In haste, Jim_Lockhart 15:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion that the pejorative suffix 「奴（－め）」 might be derived from 「群れ」(a flock, a herd, a crowd) would be sliced and diced by Occam's razor; it requires extra phonological alteration and a rather unfathomable semantic shift. The theory that the pejorative suffix is derived from 「女、妻、雌、牝」（め） is parsimonious from both the phonological and semantic perspective. For comparison, consider the free adjective 「女々しい（めめしい）」 and its phonologically altered colloquial variant, みみっちい。 These adjectives are based on the archaic morpheme /me/ (female; woman; wife) and they both carry pejorative senses of "effeminate" or "small-minded."

As for the dialectical usage of the suffix /-me/ as a diminutive marker (without any particularly pejorative connotation), c.f. 昔の茨城弁集. Note that one of the first (if not the very first) examples of Japanese dialectology, 物類称呼, which dates to the Edo Period (1775年刊), remarks on the use of the suffix 「－め」 in the area that is now Ibaraki Prefecture, and claims that it is a remnant of a very early dialectical layer in the evolution of the Japanese language, probably related to the very unusual dialect spoken on Hachijoo-jima:

◆◎～め 【接尾】 『指小辞』。動物などの名前のあとにつける。『奴』の意味。
標準語でも同じ語法があるが、主に憎らしい意味を込めて使うのに対して、『ねごめ、いぬめ、かんめ、へえめ、うまめ』の様に動物や昆虫類の呼称に使われる。
『称呼』によれば、『むま：下総にてはまあ、同国猿島及下野国にてはまあめといふ。其外此国にて蚊め、とんぼめなどと下にめの字を付けてよぶ。是は今、つばくら、はたをりむしなどいふ物を、いにしへつばくらめ、はたをりめといひしたくいにて、古代の語の遺りたるものなるへし。』とある。
方言学では、本土方言、琉球方言、八丈方言の大きく三つに分けている。八丈島の方言はそれほそ独特で古代の関東方言を残しているとされる。その八丈島にもこの『め』がある。越谷吾山の説を言うまでもなく、『め』は古代語の可能性が高い。

Again, it is necessary to note that when a Japanese person claims that 「～め」 "means" 「奴」, they are simply indicating that (in their opinion) the Ibaraki diminutive suffix /-me/ "means" (i.e., is cognate with) the Standard Japanese pejorative suffix /-me/, referring to the fact that the pejorative suffix 「－め」 is sometimes also written as 「奴」. However, I should also remind you that Japanese people are notorious for their poor knowledge of linguistic methodology and etymology, particularly in regards to their own language, and their theories on the etymology of various "yamato-kotoba" are often quite outrageous.

I think it is ultimately best to use internal reconstruction in order to recover the origin of the diminutive and pejorative suffix /-me/; one may deduce from the pattern of ancient compounds, such as 「めなみ（女波）」 vs. 「をなみ（男波）」 and 「めだき（雌滝）」 vs. 「をだき（雄滝）」, that the Old Japanese morpheme /me/ was used as a diminutive affix (in these cases, as a prefix) since very early times, and the modern dialectical diminutive suffix /-me/, as well as the Standard Japanese pejorative suffix /-me/, is almost certainly a continuation of that metonymic usage of the morpheme /me/ (female; woman; wife) as an affix.

You still have not sourced your argument—which I do not dispute: all I want is attribution. And as you have stated, the Japanese are notorious for falling in love with untenable folk etymologies (which is what my “fwiw” comment was intended to indicate—and it is not I who made the suggestion, it is Genkai), which is why I am less likely to give credence to a work from 1775, much less allow analysis of Ibaragi-ben to persuade me about this.

Further, many of the examples of ～め I see as a pejorative suffice are not from 標準語, but rather 古語; in other words, め has a long pedigree as as pejorative suffix—perhaps (I’m speculating here, just as you seem to be above with your “I think it is ultimately best to use internal reconstruction...” comment) indicating that it is just as old as the diminutive me suffix derived from 女.

You wrote:

...one may deduce from the pattern of ancient compounds, such as 「めなみ（女波）」 vs. 「をなみ（男波）」 and 「めだき（雌滝）」 vs. 「をだき（雄滝）」, that the Old Japanese morpheme /me/ was used as a diminutive affix (in these cases, as a prefix) since very early times, and the modern dialectical diminutive suffix /-me/, as well as the Standard Japanese pejorative suffix /-me/, is almost certainly a continuation of that metonymic usage of the morpheme /me/ (female; woman; wife) as an affix.

This is formulated as conjecture on your part (“one may deduce...” “is almost certainly”)—i.e., a synthesis of your own based on primary sources, making it original research. Personally, I find this all fascinating; but it is not permitted on Wikipedia for the reasons explained at WP:NOR (please read this!).

My point, again, is that if you can provide a source—the name(s) of works that purport this theory—please do, so it/they can be cited. Thanks, Jim_Lockhart 02:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

ass removed

"ass" as in dumbass doesn't seem to be a suffix. IMHO this is a regular compound of an adjective and a noun. Cf. smartass, fatass etc. Since this was added by an IP on Jan 25 this is most likely just a bad joke. Hence I remove it. --Zinnmann 19:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

-ski?

The suffix -ski/-sky/-skie has been added to many English (AmE, mostly, I think) words as a sort of diminutive or endearment (eg. "brewski", "broski", "Polski", "Russki[e]" etc). I'm curious to know where this trend might have come from and if it is of any note? It might have been originally insulting, poking fun at Slavic populations in the U.S. but it's become, from my perspective at least, more and more common in recent years and might do with some clarification as to its origins. 70.166.129.157 (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Melzipan

more English examples removed

I removed -ar, -ard, and -el as examples. If a suffix really attributes a pejorative meaning to a stem it has to be linguistically productive. Neither of the examples works. Cf. *thinkar, *thinkard (one who can't think right or who has a bad reputation). -ard doesn't attach a negative meaning to an adjective or noun. It just designate a feature/habit to a person. E.g., a wizard is not per se a bad person. -el is not an suffix in its own right. -rel might be, but as "minstrel" shows it's not pejorative. All in all the article or at least the examples are a bit flawed and should be handled with care. --Zinnmann (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Is productivity a necessary condition for other suffixes? I think not, so why for pejorative suffixes? The currently productive suffix -tard cannot be applied to all words (e.g. the example 'think'), which is not surprising, as no other suffix in English, Russian, or even Esperanto can be applied blindly and produce a useful result. The productive suffix -tard results in non-standard words, and so could be criticized from the opposite angle. I would tend to be more inclusive, bearing in mind the likely purposes of the readers of this article.

If we are to insist on pejorative purism, we might as well just delete the entire page, because there are probably few suffixes here which are 100% pejorative. In the case of -ard I provided sufficient references: http://www.billcasselman.com/unpub_four/ard_words.htm http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=-ard

The 'minstrel' counterexample is also questionable, as the word originally had negative connotations:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=minstrel http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=-rel One might want to exercise caution in deleting others' contributions, especially those with references provided by native speakers of the language in question. Simplulo (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course, productivity is necessary, otherwise we cannot speak of suffixation. That doesn't mean that every suffix has to function in every surroundings. But it definitely has to be more than one or two ad hoc formations like -aster.

Bill Casselman's site proves only that -ard has been a very productive suffix in old french. Though he states (without prove) that it was "negative", he provides lots of examples with no pejorative meaning at all: standard, placard, tankard, lizard, mustard etc. etc.".

You are quite right, when you say that few suffixes here are 100% pejorative. In fact there are very few pejorative suffixes in any given language. It shouldn't be our goal, to list any suffix that occure in a pejorative. Cause that doesn't make it a pejorative suffix. Otherwise you should add -er as most productive nominalization suffix for agent nouns to the list. "Fucker, murderer, molester" are clearly pejorative. But the semantic roots in the underlying verb, not the suffix (cf. "singer, teacher, worker ..."). --Zinnmann (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We can quite easily speak of suffixation without 'current' productivity. Otherwise how to explain large classes of words (like those in question) whose suffixes are no longer used? Just ignore them and pretend that they don't exist? Do you deny that laggard has a suffix, and deny that it is pejorative? You seem to be imposing your own private interpretation here, whereas Wikipedia should reflect commonly accepted principles.

-er has multiple meanings (e.g. one who repeatedly performs an activity, adjectival comparative, and also, yes, pejorative (e.g. stoner, beaner). It thus deserves its place among the pejorative suffixes, which indeed it has in other dictionaries. Simplulo (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you add your thoughts and theories about suffix productivity and applicability to the article itself. -Simplulo (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I neither deny that lagard has a suffix nor that the word has a pejorative component. But I deny vigorously that this pejorative component is added by the suffix. It's already part of the word stem. May I remind you of the definition of the lemma: "A pejorative suffix is a suffix that attaches a negative meaning to the word or word-stem preceding it." You seem to suggest that any suffix in a word with a somewhat negative connotation is a pejorative suffix. If so, wouldn't you have to consider the -or in traitor a pejorative suffix whereas in doctor it isn't? Same with -er: in fucker it is pejorative, in lover it isn't. Or -age: pejorative in carnage, non-pejorative in suffrage. How do you deal with such irregularities? --Zinnmann (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)