This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
it is an example of tmesis rather than infixation, since true infixes are bound morphemes.
fgu jn j ~
I'm glad this isn't a dictionary and I can just click on those words without having to spend all day looking for them in the dictionary. Nice confusing sentence ;p Morhange 23:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I have heard "unbe-fuckin-lievable" as often as "un-fuckin-believable". Who got the idea that "unbe-fuckin-lievable" is rare? It's a completely hopeless example. — Randall Bart 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the "Examples" section entirely. My reasons for doing so are these: 1) It was essentially a random list of trivia, strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. The fact that some of the examples had citations does not make them any less trivial. 2) The examples listed were phenomenally redundant. 3) The main body of the article already contains several examples, as it should. MarritzN ( talk) 23:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed "ricockulous" because "cock" is neither an adjective nor a participle, and it replaces "dic(k)" rather than inserts into the word. -- Atemperman 01:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC) erg 3 3 # L34 g l
What's the difference between this and an endoclitic?-- 87.162.44.28 ( talk) 00:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
An clitic requires a host. These words can stand alone:
un-fucking-believeable --> fucking
Possessive 's is often considered a clitic in English. Note that it cannot stand on its own:
[that guy]'s hat --> *'s
This, of course, is an enclitic, not an endoclitic. We have no real endoclitics in English (try looking at Tagalog). There is one historical left-over that is thought to have derived from an endoclitic, however. The /n/ in 'stand' is thought to be the present participle marker from Latin. Notice its absence in the past form 'stood'.
_____________________________________
My comment begins here. The above comment was not signed. Please edit. This is a separate topic but directly related to the article.
"Due to John McCarthy"? I would rethink that. "Developed by" is one suggestion. "Presented by" is another. I know the writer meant "attributable to," as in "due to the weather," but the use here in conjunction with a person's name is awkward. "Theory due to John McCarthy." Due to John McCarthy's what? His efforts? His research? In common usage, "due to" usually points to a common noun. Although pointing to a proper noun is technically correct, it seems incomplete. "Due to the Coast Starlight." Due the Coast Starlight doing what? Running late? The writer probably should have used the terms dictionaries present to define "due to": "attributable to" or "attributed to." Jgarvey1 ( talk) 17:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
If the infex had to come between morphemes, wouldn't we expect ab-fucking-solutely or absolute-fucking-ly? 96.255.9.115 ( talk) 21:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
it is an example of tmesis rather than infixation, since true infixes are bound morphemes.
fgu jn j ~
I'm glad this isn't a dictionary and I can just click on those words without having to spend all day looking for them in the dictionary. Nice confusing sentence ;p Morhange 23:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I have heard "unbe-fuckin-lievable" as often as "un-fuckin-believable". Who got the idea that "unbe-fuckin-lievable" is rare? It's a completely hopeless example. — Randall Bart 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the "Examples" section entirely. My reasons for doing so are these: 1) It was essentially a random list of trivia, strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. The fact that some of the examples had citations does not make them any less trivial. 2) The examples listed were phenomenally redundant. 3) The main body of the article already contains several examples, as it should. MarritzN ( talk) 23:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed "ricockulous" because "cock" is neither an adjective nor a participle, and it replaces "dic(k)" rather than inserts into the word. -- Atemperman 01:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC) erg 3 3 # L34 g l
What's the difference between this and an endoclitic?-- 87.162.44.28 ( talk) 00:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
An clitic requires a host. These words can stand alone:
un-fucking-believeable --> fucking
Possessive 's is often considered a clitic in English. Note that it cannot stand on its own:
[that guy]'s hat --> *'s
This, of course, is an enclitic, not an endoclitic. We have no real endoclitics in English (try looking at Tagalog). There is one historical left-over that is thought to have derived from an endoclitic, however. The /n/ in 'stand' is thought to be the present participle marker from Latin. Notice its absence in the past form 'stood'.
_____________________________________
My comment begins here. The above comment was not signed. Please edit. This is a separate topic but directly related to the article.
"Due to John McCarthy"? I would rethink that. "Developed by" is one suggestion. "Presented by" is another. I know the writer meant "attributable to," as in "due to the weather," but the use here in conjunction with a person's name is awkward. "Theory due to John McCarthy." Due to John McCarthy's what? His efforts? His research? In common usage, "due to" usually points to a common noun. Although pointing to a proper noun is technically correct, it seems incomplete. "Due to the Coast Starlight." Due the Coast Starlight doing what? Running late? The writer probably should have used the terms dictionaries present to define "due to": "attributable to" or "attributed to." Jgarvey1 ( talk) 17:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
If the infex had to come between morphemes, wouldn't we expect ab-fucking-solutely or absolute-fucking-ly? 96.255.9.115 ( talk) 21:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)