Talk:-all

RFV discussion: June 2023–June 2024

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

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.

---

-all

"Relating to the whole of something. catch-all, end-all". Not a suffix. Equinox ◑ 02:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

If it isnt a suffix then what would it be? It creates nouns from verbs. And although all can be a noun, it isnt a noun in the sense that's used here, since the all in "catch-all", "cure-all", and so on is the object of the verb, not the agent. If this were a simple compound, then "all" would be the head, so "catch-all" would need to mean "an all that catches", and so on, which is not what it means. I oppose deletion on grammatical grounds, but this seems like an RFD question more so than RFV, because as above, how would we turn up three cites for -all in isolation? Best regards, —Soap— 05:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out – that "[i]f this were a simple compound, then 'all' would be the head, so 'catch-all' would need to mean 'an all that catches'" isn't particularly true, in terms of V+(Pro)N compounding in English. There is an inherent error to this argument, viz. a compound is a lexicalised object and cannot be analysed phrasally. But more importantly, please consider the following six (Group A):

• pickpocket, not "a pocket that picks," but "one who picks pockets";
• daredevil, not "a devil that dares," but "one who dares the devil";
• spoilsport, not "a sport that spoils", but "one who spoils the sport (=entertainment)";
• killjoy, not "a joy that kills", but "one who kills the joy";
• breakfast, not "a fast that breaks," but "one that breaks the fast";
• pastime, not "a time that passes," but "that which is done to pass the time";

and the following (Group B):

• singsong, "a piece of verse" < "an instance of singing a song" = "song singing";

and the following (Group C):

• go-ahead, "an utterance of 'go ahead!'"

If V+N compound could only be parsed as "N that V", then none of the above would be valid compounds, and -pocket, -devil, etc., by your reasoning, would have to be considered as suffixes. (Along the same line, V+ProN compounds like do-little, do-nothing, know-nothing also exist and conform to Group A, as well as say-so, which conforms to Group B. If -all should be analysed as a suffix it would only seem fair for -nothing, -little, and -so to also follow suit.) This is obviously infeasible. Catch-all, know-it-all, etc., in fact follows the exact same wordformation pattern as those in Group A; I don't particularly see why they shouldn't be analysed as compounds as well.

Cheers, 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 12:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes Im familiar with endocentric compounds. I see a few differences between those words and the words using -all and -it-all. I'll just treat Group A together:

1. These compounds always omit a linking word. In all cases but the first, the patient is indefinite, so the missing word is the. Nobody says *break-the-fast.
2. These compounds always have the second element as a noun, whereas -it-all and -all end with what I would prefer to call a determiner, although I guess there is some debate about that. However this point may be irrelevant so I wont stress it.
3. Most importantly, though, in these compounds, both morphemes are fixed. breakfast is a word familiar to anyone, but outside of ad-hoc coinages, nobody says *makefast or *breakmeal. By contrast, -it-all and -all can attach to multiple words. Only one morpheme is free. I admit that this helps me understand why it is important, as stated above, that -it-all cannot pass CFI just based on know-it-all. Maybe this paragraph is the only really important thing in my reply, but I want to make clear why I'm being so insistent.

As for the others .... Group B just looks like another instance of the Group A pattern to me. I guess it's not endocentric, but it is head-first, which is the most relevant characteristic of English endocentrics as it is the one that's shared by constructions such as know-it-all. As for Group C, I'd say it's just a lexicalized quote; it's not a compound at all, any more than thank-you is.

That's all I have to say for now. Thanks for reading, —Soap— 13:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply :^) On point 2: I'd say all and it all are both pronominal in this case.

You raise a point in point 3; how do you feel about the nothing in do-nothing, have-nothing [1], know-nothing, get-nothing, and good-for-nothing, though? Going by your argument, -nothing should also be considered a suffix. 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 13:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say -nothing qualifies as a suffix, yes, although your last word is another lexicalized quote, and doesnt form a set with the rest. Perhaps being two syllables long explains the scarcity of examples. If naught weren't archaic, perhaps we'd have more words like dreadnought.

Regarding the pronouns ... if all and it-all are pronouns, it seems hard to argue that expressions ending in them could be nominal compounds, even endocentric ones. But I get the impression there are more than two sides here, and we have as many opinions as we have people in this thread. —Soap— 18:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

yes, good-for-nothing doesn't fall in with other verb-headed -nothings, that was on me; but I don't get why you'd classify it as a "lexicalised quote." (Also – circling back a little – I don't know if compounding necessarily excludes lexicalised quotes, but maybe we are operating under different theoretical frameworks.)

I also fail to see why "if all and it-all are pronouns, it seems hard to argue that expressions ending in them could be nominal compounds". All, it-all being pronouns doesn't say anything against catch-all, know-it-all being exocentric compounds, per Bloomfield's definition of endo- and exo-centric compounding.

I'm sorry that I'm probably dragging this discussion unwelcomedly long; I didn't have time to properly respond to your previous reply, and I keep being distracted by the smaller points we're making. Mostly I'm just really confused as to why you would insist that know-it-all, catch-all and do-nothing are stem+suffix constructions, when they are semantically and syntactically motivated in the exact same way as daredevil and pickpocket. (the point 1 you made in your previous reply was a non-argument, as English pronouns like all or nothing cannot take determiners in the first place.) 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 22:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a very interesting discussion. If you feel the discussion is too long I'd be happy to continue it somewhere else, perhaps at a slower pace. I'd like to leave this thread be for at least the next few days, as I'll be somewhat more busy. Thanks for talking, —Soap— 07:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

As per the discussion above, I understand that three words using this as a suffix are enough to get it through CFI. We could use catch-all, cure-all, and overall. The last has no hyphen, but as it is a noun, and does not mean "an all that is over", it can only be using the same -all suffix as the other two words. More examples can be found ... there is an expression the end-all be-all, though I don't know how often those words are untethered. Collins lists cover-all, with or without hyphen, to describe a similar garment to overalls.

As for the original question of why this is a suffix, I think I've amply addressed that above. —Soap— 12:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

We actually have coverall. We just didnt list the hyphenated spelling. So we have four words using this suffix as a suffix now, and I think this should be considered cited and I'm going to leave it be, as there's nothing more I should need to do. Thanks, —Soap— 07:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree that this is cited. Nothing of what you said above demonstrates that this is a suffix. PUC – 13:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This is just part of a pattern of fossiling sentences with a non-finite form of the verb: pissabed and lie-abed aren't evidence for an "-abed" suffix. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Content disputes are a sign of a healthy community. In some online communities, people form into cliques and anyone can predict the winner of a policy discussion from the get-go because the same people always win. I'm glad we're not like that here. However, I still think these RFV's are in the wrong place, as they were simply RFD's by another name, and as such, I realized it would make no difference if I were able to come up with 300 cites instead of just 3, since the same people could continue to say that they aren't being used as suffixes. If we count this as the RFD that I believe it is, I'm outnumbered 4 to 1, and I expect both this page and -it-all to be deleted. I think that's wrong, and still feel that with a proper RFD it may have attracted more attention, but there are more important things to focus on right now so I am going to move on. Best regards, —Soap— 17:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• failed. Denazz (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)