Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:-fucking-. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:-fucking-, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:-fucking- in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:-fucking- you have here. The definition of the word Talk:-fucking- will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:-fucking-, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion
The entry fucking 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 fucking. --Connel MacKenzie04:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Obviously not. Those have previously been discussed and rejected as being too formulaic. As I said above (do you have a problem reading? Why the hostile tone?) the formation of such compound words belongs in a usage note of fucking. --Connel MacKenzie05:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Dmh’s argument on Talk:unbefuckinglievable: “n sum, the construction is worth noting, even if the meaning is fairly self-evident from the parts. For that matter, unbelievable is also self-evident from its parts, but merits its own entry”. If these derived terms have indeed “previously been discussed and rejected as being too formulaic”, then please provide a link to that or those said discussion(s). See my argument for why the entry for -fucking- ought to exist hereinbefore. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr05:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
The affixional equivalent of word entries’ citations are lists of words in the “Derived terms” section. To attest an affix, it must have at least three derived terms which themselves satisfy WT:CFI (this isn’t official — we don’t, as far as I’m aware, have policies that cover inclusion criteria for affixes yet — what I’m describing just seems to be emerging “common practice”). All that notwithstanding, I’m not passionately in favour of these intensifier infixes; nevertheless, if words like fanfuckingtastic meet CFI, I can’t think of a good reason to exclude them. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr05:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Further reading: w:Expletive infixation. This was also discussed on the Linguist-list a few years back, I believe... It's a fascinating topic, and I'm not quite sure how we should best approach it. Since this is a fairly widespread property among expletives, an appendix on English expletive use (linked from the appropriate entries) might be ideal.
As a side note, I don't really understand why we're adding hyphens to pagenames in this way; it strikes me as rather unlikely that the general reader will ever type "-fucking-" (or for that matter "un-") into a search box... -- Visviva06:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Our usage note says: "If the original word has a space, this infix is usually written with spaces. Jesus Fucking Christ! New Fucking York." Is that not the intensifying fucking rather than this -fucking-? Equinox◑07:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply