Talk:oft-
Latest comment: 12 years ago by -sche in topic RFV
RFV
edit
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
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 (deprecated template usage) 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)
- (deprecated template usage) 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 — no more than assuming a lawn- prefix because of lawnmower. Equinox ◑ 00:18, 18 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)
- 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)
- (deprecated template usage) Oft would formerly have been in widespread use. DCDuring TALK 22:51, 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)
- Alright, I've deleted the English section, per this discussion. - -sche (discuss) 07:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)