Borstelig

Fragment of a discussion from User talk:Rua

Does using the affix in the modern language preclude Middle Dutch borstelich, for example (excuse the likely random spelling)? I am always reticent to use {{affix}} without a corpus or a reference because of this problem.

Isomorphyc (talk)23:03, 14 December 2017

Borstelich was formed from borstel + -ich, of which the modern descendants are borstel + -ig. Since the original formation of the word is still clearly analysable, it's given in its modern Dutch form.

Rua (mew)23:07, 14 December 2017

So basically I can be relatively cavalier about surface analysis for highly generative affixes in both modern and middle Dutch, when my main aim is to provide a hyperlink to more information. I appreciate this, thank you.

Isomorphyc (talk)23:15, 14 December 2017

Basically, if the word was formed in Middle Dutch or earlier using a derivational process that is still recognisable in modern Dutch, then use the modern Dutch forms to indicate the morphology. If the form is opaque in modern Dutch, then use the morphology of the language in which it was formed.

Rua (mew)23:23, 14 December 2017