Talk:List of English back-formations

Lists List‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

antipode[edit]

Should "antipode" be here? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should, as it is the same case as aborigine (because the Latin singular of aboriginēs is really aborigō). The correct singular of antipodes would be antipus (like octopus), compare antipodes. I've corrected the entry, which had confused the Latin with the English singular. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that "antipus" and "aborigo" would be back formations too. "Antipodes" means "the point opposite your feet", and "aborigines" means "people there from the origin". They have no singular by definition: it would be like saying that the singular of a people carrier is a person carrier! --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

A[edit]

addict from addicted (root: addicere)

The version claims it is a back-formation based on Merriam-Webster. However, current version of Merriam-Webster does not recognize it as a back-formation. Alleged editor (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster's entry page was captured on April 24, 2009 and February 21, 2010, while the entry claims Merriam-Webster's page was retrieved on November 9, 2009. Both captures fail to mention anything about back-formation, making the back-formation claim look even more unsubstantiated. Alleged editor (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The word addict was added in this version, which was edited by Mevina2 (talk|contribs) at 23:34, 25 December 2014. Alleged editor (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B[edit]

beg from beggar

This example (which is uncited) is at best controversial. According to Wiktionary, beg is descended from Old English bedecian (which became Middle English beggen with syncope). Only the Online Etymology Dictionary mentions as an alternative the hypothesis that beg was formed from beggar, but Wiktionary, while also mentioning the French derivation of beggar, refers to the contrary opinion that beggar was derived from beg. We need better sources, mainly the Oxford English Dictionary. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O[edit]

obsess (meaning "to behave obsessively") from obsessive

The verb meaning “besiege”, the adjective obsessed with approximately the modern meaning, and the noun obsession meaning “action of besieging”, were all in use by the 16^th century; obsession was used with the modern meaning “action of anything which engrosses the mind” in the 1670s. The adjective obsessive didn’t appear until 1911 (http://etymonline.com/?search=obsess). Please clarify or remove. — Dan337 (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In sentences such as "this idea is beginning to obsess me", it is a universally accepted form and not a back-formation at all. The article is referring to the use "don't obsess about it", where "obsess" is used in the sense of "be obsessed, act obsessively". That is a neologism and not universally accepted. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about when a supposed affix is taken off, and another is added[edit]

the most obvious example is "monokini"

Do things like that belong here?Tamtrible (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

admixture[edit]

Should admixture be here as a back-formation of admix? It seems that it was created in analogy with the similar noun mixture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.246.75 (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Admix" would be a back-formation if it were shown that "admixture" came first. But "Admixture" is a regularly formed abstract noun. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

possible reinterpretation[edit]

demolish as an very early backformation from demolition, instead of coming from demoliss- existing as stem in the French démolir conjugation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.151.187 (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

possible citations[edit]

Someone added several "citation needed" markers to the main page.

I'm not quite sure the nature of the citation needed, but "herp" is definitely in relatively common use to mean "reptile or amphibian"

a few links to show this: http://www.anapsid.org/vets/ http://www.carolinaherpatlas.org/ http://www.herpdigest.org/ Tamtrible (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]