Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:new-. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:new-, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:new- in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:new- you have here. The definition of the word Talk:new- will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:new-, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
If it's not a prefix, then it means that adjective+participle compounds can be formed freely and productively. new+born would have to be parallel to other combinations with different words. I'm not sure if it is, though. —CodeCat16:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I have a suggestion. If someone's a bit aware of Russian morphology, I could parallel this with such words as близлежащий or вперёдсмотрящий: formerly, they were created with two roots, but the left of them has been gradually tending to serve as a prefix. I can't recollect the exact term — maybe "prefixoid".hm. Oh, I could presume that all prefixes might derive from formerly notional words:) Josh L.15:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
It also may be unproductive now but have produced such adj-participle compounds in the past in English.
BTW, we don't have any treatment at all in English of the idea of a word being productive or unproductive in combination currently - or ever. DCDuringTALK17:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I wonder if this is a remnant of a formerly more pervasive adverb new(“newly”)? (We actually have such a sense at ], but I can't think of any other examples of it that would sound normal to me.) It feels less prefix-y to me than compound-y, though obviously that's a tenuous distinction. I would write new-mown or new-found with a hyphen — ditto new-hewn and new-minted — and then only because I tend to hyphenate multiword prenominal modifiers ("tennis shoes" vs. "tennis-shoe woes" and so on). B.g.c. shows that many writers are happy using a space in such compounds. And of course, many are happy using newly here. Personally I think we might as well redirect to ], or maybe ], and add a usage note there; but I don't feel strongly about it. —RuakhTALK18:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I have modified the entry to attempt trying to make it clear to non-academic users that this has not actually been used lately to form words, though "new" has. A word like newlaid was a relatively uncommon alternative form of new laid (equivalent to "newly laid"). It is so rare as to seem a misspelling and not a common one at that. DCDuringTALK13:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
If we follow the train of thought which states: "if it cannot stand alone as a word, then it is a prefix", then perhaps it is a compound. More likely though, it is an older prefix re-defined/re-aligned as a compound in recent times. However, if we follow the train of thinking which states: "if it behaves like a prefix (i.e. functions like other prefixes which cannot stand alone--being based solely on function)", then it's a prefix. Functionally, it is no different from mis-, under-, over-, etc. So, which is it then...? Leasnam15:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
It may be that there were some true prefix formations in EME. If there were a few (whether or not attestable), that would indicate that it was a productive English prefix. We are maintaining the fiction that Middle English is a different language for most lexicographical purposes, so formation in ME (attestation before 1470) doesn't count. OED? DCDuringTALK16:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. At Talk:newminted, Talk:newstyled, Talk:newbaked, and Talk:newleafed I have placed {{google}} (type=books) showing sufficient cites, though I have not created the entries. As they are rare relative to the corresponding hyphenated forms, are they to be considered misspellings (including typesetting errors) or alternative forms of the corresponding hyphenated versions? DCDuringTALK21:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Having thought about it further, I think part of the reason this doesn't feel "affixy" to me is that it's always stressed: NEWfangled, NEW-minted, NEW-mown, and so on. Admittedly, affixes are sometimes stressed in English — -ation is always stressed (maybe because it's really -ate + -ion?), and Greek combining forms like tele- and micro- are stressed unless a later suffix causes the stress to move rightward — but somehow I don't think that's the norm. (Contrast Leasnam's examples: misMANage, underRATed, overESTimate, etc. The only thing I can think of that seems comparable is self-, and that one can also be viewed as forming compounds.) —RuakhTALK01:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Stress isn't a reliable indicator of whether something is an affix or not. Already in Old English, many prefixes had two versions, one stressed and one unstressed. But the distinction was not whether it was a compound or a prefix, but was determined by the part of speech. Nominal prefixes were usually stressed, verbal prefixes generally weren't. Compare stressed æf- and unstressed of-. If this situation already existed in Old English, I don't think we can apply it to modern English. (Unless these stressed prefixes have suddenly become compounds in the last thousand years?) —CodeCat10:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Re: "Stress isn't a reliable indicator of whether something is an affix or not": Granted. I don't think I implied that it was. But thank you for the information about Old English; that's really interesting! —RuakhTALK13:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I wonder whether newmodel, apparently an alternative form of new-model, doesn't have an atypical etymology, from Cromwell's w:New Model Army (1645-1660). Other Modern English "new-" words, especially those recently formed or at least used commonly might make for better examples, even for pronunciation-based reasoning. DCDuringTALK15:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
