Talk:-ence
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Liliana-60 in topic RFD discussion: March 2016
- Is this suffix productive in English? Unlike its counterpart -ance, which is productive, I cannot think of any words with it that were created in English. Leasnam 19:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
- Discussion moved from WT:Requests for verification#-ence.
Rfd-sense
Someone added a second Etymology (at bottom) stating -ence is a suffix in words like whence, hence, etc. I don't think it's a suffix. Leasnam (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- So 'hence', 'thence' and 'whence' were all formed in modern English? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- We have lots of use of
{{suffix}}and{{prefix}}for words where the history indicates that the term was borrowed, with pronunciation and spelling altered, rather than formed morphologically. Many of our prefix and suffix derivation categories are thoroughly cluttered with these. If ony we had a "suffix:" search capability analogous to "prefix:". That would replace and extend one of the uses of the misleadingly filled suffix categories. DCDuring TALK 00:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)- I think these morphology templates should be used for synchronic analysis rather than diachronic. It should show what parts the word is made up from now, even if the word was actually created centuries ago. So even if a word was formed in Old English, if it is still made from recognisable distinct and (somewhat) productive parts in modern English, then we should use these templates.
- If the term was borrowed in its already-affixed form, then I'm not sure. The difficulty with such cases is often that the unsuffixed form doesn't exist at all as it was never borrowed. However, I would certainly want to see derivation in Category:English words suffixed with -ation. The suffix is there synchronically, plain and simple, anyone would see that. —CodeCat 00:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. This is specifically labeled "nonproductive". Basically someone saw that these were semantically similar and decided to reanalyze them as containing a suffix. Really all the "derived terms" have in common is that they have the adverbial genitive added to something that rhymes: whence from whenne (see the MED entry), hence from henne (see the MED entry), and thence from thenne (see the MED entry). Particularly telling is the complete lack of entries using this "suffix"- the three entries listed as derived terms all have better etymologies already, and changing to a root + affix etymology would be reverted. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- We have lots of use of
- Not a suffix, any more than -ere is a suffix in here, there, or where. If I recall correctly, hence, thence, and whence are simply inflected forms of the same words. The same is true of -ither in hither, thither, and whither. I was thinking it was dative, but perhaps it should be considered locative? P Aculeius (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- I thought RFV was the right forum on the grounds it just doesn't exist. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you accept the premise, then attestation is not a big problem, each of the three instances being in widespread use. This venue doesn't have to be fact-free; and there is a link from RfV. The only potential problem is that this page, but not RfV may have been removed from a contributor's watchlist because of the often-fruitless or -misguided discussions. DCDuring TALK 12:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong but so far nobody's arguing that this is a suffix. The purpose of DCDuring's comment is ambiguous but I think he's just saying we have a lot of stuff in Category:English suffixes that aren't suffixes. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Okay- you're wrong. The entry has a "Suffix" POS header and says it's for creating "pronominal adverbs, from the mentioned direction of the adverb (here, there or where)". How do you search for that? The definition specifically limits the occurrence to the words hence, thence and whence, which all are amply attested. Verification would hinge on whether it's correct to analyze those words as containing a suffix- which is an rfd matter. The only other place this could go would be the Etymology scriptorium, since it's a claim about the origin of those three words. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- The crux of the matter is CodeCat's unsupported, naked assertion that "[t]he suffix is there synchronically, plain and simple, anyone would see that." That would seem to suggest that, in CodeCat's opinions, any grouping of letters at the end of a word that had a fig leaf of linguistic unity was a suffix, even if not productive and, apparently, even if there were no evidence at all that any normal English speaker thinks of the ending as a suffix. In this case we would have to accept that an inflectional ending plus a possible Old English root, with altered pronunciation and spelling was, of course, a suffix. This would seem to me to be a laughable instance of morphological imperialism that adds no value to anyone or anything in the context of a dictionary except, perhaps, to the cause of one idiosyncratic flavor of morphological imperialism. DCDuring TALK 21:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- CodeCat's statement can easily be interpreted as referring specifically to derivation and Category:English words suffixed with -ation, as part of an aside on the general principle of synchronic treatment of affixes. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- All of which seems too technical to me, when I think that Mr. Cat is laboring under the misapprehension that hence, thence, and whence are or were at some point formed from roots to which meaning was given by attaching a suffix. If this were true, then here, there, and where would be the roots, or perhaps roots plus a suffix -ere, while -ence (and presumably -ither) would be suffixed to them. But in fact these words have always existed in some form in English, because they're merely inflected forms of here, there, and where. The presumed roots and suffix -ence are inseparable. The only reason why anyone might guess them to consist of root+suffix is because there are three similar words with identical inflections. This wouldn't be surprising in Latin, where many related adjectives follow identical inflectional patterns, without the endings being suffixes; we're just not accustomed to inflection in English adjectives, because it's relatively rare. P Aculeius (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm going to disagree Chuck and say an RFV could determine through evidence whether hence, whence and thence were formed through suffixation and whether the suffixation happened in English or was inherited from Middle English and Old English. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- All of which seems too technical to me, when I think that Mr. Cat is laboring under the misapprehension that hence, thence, and whence are or were at some point formed from roots to which meaning was given by attaching a suffix. If this were true, then here, there, and where would be the roots, or perhaps roots plus a suffix -ere, while -ence (and presumably -ither) would be suffixed to them. But in fact these words have always existed in some form in English, because they're merely inflected forms of here, there, and where. The presumed roots and suffix -ence are inseparable. The only reason why anyone might guess them to consist of root+suffix is because there are three similar words with identical inflections. This wouldn't be surprising in Latin, where many related adjectives follow identical inflectional patterns, without the endings being suffixes; we're just not accustomed to inflection in English adjectives, because it's relatively rare. P Aculeius (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- CodeCat's statement can easily be interpreted as referring specifically to derivation and Category:English words suffixed with -ation, as part of an aside on the general principle of synchronic treatment of affixes. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- The crux of the matter is CodeCat's unsupported, naked assertion that "[t]he suffix is there synchronically, plain and simple, anyone would see that." That would seem to suggest that, in CodeCat's opinions, any grouping of letters at the end of a word that had a fig leaf of linguistic unity was a suffix, even if not productive and, apparently, even if there were no evidence at all that any normal English speaker thinks of the ending as a suffix. In this case we would have to accept that an inflectional ending plus a possible Old English root, with altered pronunciation and spelling was, of course, a suffix. This would seem to me to be a laughable instance of morphological imperialism that adds no value to anyone or anything in the context of a dictionary except, perhaps, to the cause of one idiosyncratic flavor of morphological imperialism. DCDuring TALK 21:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Okay- you're wrong. The entry has a "Suffix" POS header and says it's for creating "pronominal adverbs, from the mentioned direction of the adverb (here, there or where)". How do you search for that? The definition specifically limits the occurrence to the words hence, thence and whence, which all are amply attested. Verification would hinge on whether it's correct to analyze those words as containing a suffix- which is an rfd matter. The only other place this could go would be the Etymology scriptorium, since it's a claim about the origin of those three words. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong but so far nobody's arguing that this is a suffix. The purpose of DCDuring's comment is ambiguous but I think he's just saying we have a lot of stuff in Category:English suffixes that aren't suffixes. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you accept the premise, then attestation is not a big problem, each of the three instances being in widespread use. This venue doesn't have to be fact-free; and there is a link from RfV. The only potential problem is that this page, but not RfV may have been removed from a contributor's watchlist because of the often-fruitless or -misguided discussions. DCDuring TALK 12:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, this isn't a suffix. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, not a suffix. P Aculeius (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete; not a suffix. - -sche (discuss) 02:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- What they said. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
deleted -- Liliana • 22:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
- Discussion moved to WT:Requests for deletion#-ence.