Talk:-bloody-

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.

---

-bloody-

The entry bloody should have a usage note explaining that this is used to form compound words (I presume that such a note is currently missing.) Any 'quazi-etymological' references should be corrected to bloody. --Connel MacKenzie 04:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If a word is used to form at least three compound words (that is, if it is an etymon), then it deserves an entry as an affix (even though man is first and foremost a stand-alone word, as it is used as a suffix, it is therefore given an entry as a suffix at -man). Send -bloody- and -fucking- to WT:RFV if you don’t think that they are attestable etyma. Your objection to the use of the Infix POS header in English entries is not relevant to this discussion. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 04:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. This entry should not exist - there are no "infixes" recognized in English - but there are compound words. To assert that English suddenly follows arbitrary rules from random other languages is folly. There is no question at all, that it is used prolifically to form compound words, so an RFV is out of the question. But it most certainly does belong on RFD (if not deleted on sight.) --Connel MacKenzie 05:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Your claim is utterly false. Expletive infixation is a widely recognized and well described phenomenon in English. If you want to delete these entries because you don't recognize English infixes, say so; don't pretend you represent mankind. —Ruakh_TALK 05:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Where did I claim to represent all of mankind? What English dictionaries list things as "Infixes" rather than compound words? --Connel MacKenzie 05:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Every dictionary I know lists entries for affixes! (Are you sure that you’re using “compound word” correctly here?) As, specifically, for infixes, as I’ve said before, the COED [11^th Ed.] lists the English infixes -i- and -o-. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 06:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

English dictionaries I have seen list words as being used to form compound words, rather than listing sub-word components. ORO supposedly includes COED, but returns "No results found" when I search "-o-". Likewise Google books. Google doesn't seem to be able to return any meaningful results for this. --Connel MacKenzie 06:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC) (edit) 06:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Affixes = “sub-word components”, and -bloody-, -fucking-, et cetera are used to form compound words. I can’t really explain the ORO anomaly, other than by reference to a similar anomaly I encountered when searching for bandeauxes in Google (yielding one result) and in Dogpile (which apparently includes Google, but yet yielded no results). I assure you that both -i- and -o- are listed in the COED. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 07:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, people, please... These are examples of the figure of speech known as tmesis. As any intensifier can be used in this way (the example often given is "abso-bloody-lutely", but I could just as well say "abso-flaming-lutely", "abso-goddamn-lutely" or even "abso-you-betcha-sweet-bippy-lutely". I think it is specious to say that these adverbs are affixes. Affixes, such as "sub-", "-o-" and -"ism", are not words in their own right. Other dictionaries certainly do give affixes, but "-bloody-", etc, are not affixes: they are adverbs that are positioned within a word rather than before it or after it. We already have (or should have) entries for these adverbs, so delete. — Paul G 08:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: "Sub-" and "-ism" as affixes are not words in their own right; the nouns sub (= submarine, subscription, etc) and ism (= ideology) are words in their own right that have been derived from these affixes. — Paul G 08:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were calm…

The Wikipedia article, w:Expletive infixation, in a referenced statement asserts that this process “is similar to tmesis, but not all instances are covered by the usual definition of tmesis because the words are not necessarily compounds”, although I cannot profess to knowing how this affects your argument.

As a counterargument, consider that it may not be obvious to everyone that a certain word has been infixed with an expletive adverb (especially those words written without hyphens, such as unbefuckinglievable), and that the examples that satisfy CFI ought to be given their own entries. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 08:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would vote to weak keep, given Paul's objection, provided that, as suggested by Raifʻhār Doremítzwr, it is an etymon of, as Connel MacKenzie and and as yet unsubstantiated comments on Wikipedia suggest, words that are not compounds, and that due to spelling it is not clearly a case of tmesis, and those words are not similar constructions (unfuckingbelievable = unbefuckinglievable), and that those words are each verified on Wiktionary, by three independent citations spanning at least a year. I would vote keep if at least three citiations of three such words are in print, and strong keep if for each of any three such words, a citation appears in well-known work or refereed academic journal, conveying meaning, or the word is also included in any one of the major English dictionaries. So a big question for me, in resolution of this RFD, is what currently exists on Wiktionary, or what is claimed to exist out there that would need to be immediately put to RFV. Right now there are no derived terms for -bloody-, and no pages link to it in their etymologies, which would suggest a delete is in order. DAVilla 10:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Kappa, you seemed supportive of these two infixes. If you wish to see them kept, how about you go about meeting DAVilla’s criteria? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to get hold of my linguist friend with the Ph.D. who first introduced me to the idea of infixes existing in English. She might enjoy looking for these. (There are only two or three as I recall). --EncycloPetey 17:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)