Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:-log. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:-log, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:-log in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:-log you have here. The definition of the word Talk:-log will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:-log, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
RFD discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
to make an entry, record.
The definition would need cleaning up so someone could easily understand what is intended, but does this function as a suffix in this way or does the suffix form a noun and then, by and by, the noun is used as a verb? DCDuringTALK15:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, there's no requirement that all suffixes listed at Wiktionary be productive, but I too would like to see a clear example of this alleged suffix in use. —Angr16:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Shouldn't an affix have been productive at some point in a given language if it is presented as one in a dictionary for that language? Why should it even be called an "affix" if it is never used as one? Is there some definition of affix that we should use that is distinct from a sense connected with actual word formation? DCDuringTALK18:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Has (deprecated template usage)-en ever been the productive way of forming past participles in English? If not, does that mean we shouldn't have an entry for it? If (deprecated template usage)-log is never used as a suffix, we shouldn't call it one, but I just meant in general productivity should not be a criterion for inclusion of affixes. As for (deprecated template usage)weblog, it seems to be exactly was DCDuring was talking about: a noun formed by compound (web + log) followed by the creation of a denominal verb from the noun. No verb-forming suffix -log being added to web. —Angr21:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
One of the advantages of covering all languages is that we would have an entry at the page ], but the L2 header would be Old English, which probably should appear before other languages, together with Middle English. I'd like to keep each of these things in the right location. It certainly shouldn't be categorized as a Modern English affix if it doesn't behave as one. Perhaps -en#English should be a disambiguation page passing users to the L2 sections for the extinct languages for which the affix or inflectional ending was productive and not vestigial. DCDuringTALK21:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, if productivity within a language is not a criterion, then we are missing several thousand affixes, eg -ando#English, -andi#English, .... I don't think that is a productive direction for us, but others may disagree. I think thus affixes work fine for English users just where they are. DCDuringTALK00:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
If -ando is recognisable as distinct morpheme to English speakers, and also has a meaning that is at least somewhat transparent from nouns containing it (i.e. is not a cranberry morpheme), then I see no reason why it can't be included. —CodeCat01:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
