# word / parts of a word becoming a suffix



## rusita preciosa

I'm wondering if your language has this process when a part of a word or a word becomes a  suffix? Is there is a linguistic term for that?

Here are some examples in English (I can’t really think of any in Russian):

*- gate *(meaning: scandal/conspiracy). Comes from Watergate, it is widely used for all kinds of scandals/controversies (e.g. Bridgegate, Climtegate, even Nipplegate).

*-holic *(meaning: addition). Initially from alcoholic, but now is used for any addiction (e.g. shopaholic, chocoholic..)


----------



## Gavril

rusita preciosa said:


> I'm wondering if your language has this process when a part of a word or a word becomes a  suffix?




Icelandic isn't my native language (of course), but it has a suffix -*erni *that seems to have been abstracted from words like _faðerni_ "paternity" < _faðir_  "father". Now this suffix occurs in words like _hátterni_ "behavior" <  _hátt_- "manner", _þjóðerni_ "nationality" < _þjóð_ "nation", and so on,  even though the stems from which these words were formed don't end in -_r_ as _faðir_ and similar words do.

Also, the suffix -*verji* is sometimes used in the names of nationalities or other groups (_Rómverji_ "Roman", _Kínverji_ "Chinese person", etc.), and is thought to be related to the verb _verja_ "defend", _vörn_ "defense" and so on. The original meaning of -_verji_ may have been "one who fights for [X]".



> Is there is a linguistic term for that?



"fusion", maybe?


----------



## CapnPrep

rusita preciosa said:


> I'm wondering if your language has this process when a part of a word or a word becomes a  suffix? Is there is a linguistic term for that?


The linguistic term is _secretion_ (not really sure why ), and since it is not exactly clear if the formant involved is a suffix or a root, linguists call it more vaguely a "combining form".


----------



## Gavril

More examples:

- In Finnish there is a adjective suffix -*mainen*, one of whose meanings is "-like": e.g., _kissamainen _"catlike", _konemainen_ "machine-like" etc. It is thought to be based on the noun _maa_ "land", but the suffix has lost any clear trace of this word's meaning.

- English -*like* and -*ly* (_kingly_, _slowly_, _lovely_ etc.) and their various Germanic cognates are thought to come from an independent word meaning "body" (cf. the archaic English word _lich_ "corpse").


----------



## franknagy

The Hungarian word *kor* means *age*. It became a suffix meaning an exact time: 8 óra*kor* means *at* 8 o'clock.


----------



## Encolpius

franknagy said:


> The Hungarian word *kor* means *age*. It became a suffix meaning an exact time: 8 óra*kor* means *at* 8 o'clock.



 Fantastic example, it would not have occurred to my mind, although it is a very simple and common suffix.


----------



## origumi

franknagy said:


> The Hungarian word *kor* means *age*. It became a suffix meaning an exact time: 8 óra*kor* means *at* 8 o'clock.


But examples like this must be abundant in Hungarian as an agglutinative language, don't they?


----------



## CapnPrep

As a clarification, when I mentioned the linguistic term "secretion" I was specifically referring to examples of the _-gate_ and _-aholic_ type. But I notice that the OP also included "a part of a word *or a word* becomes a  suffix", and most of the examples offered in responses to this thread have been of this second type, which cannot be called secretion, but "morphologization" with "univerbation" (or "fusion", as Gavril suggested). The textbook example of this is the Romance adverbial suffix _-ment(e)_, from the Latin noun _mente_ "mind". And there are certainly examples of Russian suffixes or compound-forming elements that derive from full words, like -ся or -град. But again, these are different from the OP's initial examples, which involve the creation of a novel combining form by decomposing a leader word in a non-etymological way.


----------



## punctuate

rusita preciosa said:


> (I can’t really think of any in Russian)


In Russian, it simply goes by a different term. Just see all those возы or планы: we have водовозы, паровозы, электровозы, ракетовозы, углевозы, and we can form new words, like топливовозы (trucks with cargoes of fuel) or атомовозы (trucks that are driven by atomic energy, even if атомоход or атомокар is what I have seen in future-fiction instead (I think that the word science-fiction is very misleading, at least in relation to those authors that I've read)); экранопланы, and add to them атомопланы if you like. For those who don't know Russian: I am talking of the way to compose new words in Russian that involves combining two roots together, with putting an additional vowel between them, and with adding other morphemes if necessary. Some of the roots are productive enough in the second position, thus effectively becoming suffices of word-formation.


----------



## rusita preciosa

punctuate said:


> водовозы, паровозы, электровозы, ракетовозы, углевозы



I am talikng about a different phenomenon. Your examples are simply compound nouns, like English boyfriend/girlfriend, policeman/spokesman/chairman, haircut etc...


----------



## punctuate

rusita preciosa said:


> I am talikng about a different phenomenon. Your examples are simply compound nouns, like English boyfriend/girlfriend, policeman/spokesman/chairman, haircut etc...


Okay, but they fit your description:


rusita preciosa said:


> I'm wondering if your language has this process when a part of a word or a word becomes a  suffix?


Though, I agree, they don't fit your English examples, because in them the meaning of the suffix does not stem from the meaning of any word that the suffix is formed from, unlike in my example of the (productive!) suffix -овоз. Boyfriend is different, because -friend has not become such part of a word that has the habit of modifying the meaning of the word, that it is attached to, in a more or less predictable way. But policeman fits also (businessman, roadman, streetman, whatever).


----------



## Encolpius

origumi said:


> But examples like this must be abundant in Hungarian as an agglutinative language, don't they?



You are right there are about 80-90 suffixes in Hungarian but they are just suffixes like the English -ish, -ize, etc....


----------



## rusita preciosa

punctuate said:


> Okay, but they fit your description


No they don't because -воз- is not a suffix, it is a word within a compound word.
-holic- does not have a meaning, it is a random part of another word
-gate- is random too, if the Watergate business complex had another name (Waterway/Waterview), the suffix could have been -way-/-view-.


----------



## punctuate

rusita preciosa said:


> No they don't because -воз- is not a suffix, it is a word within a compound word.


Actually, -овоз. But why is it not a suffix? Anything that can be added to the end of an existing word to get a new word with a meaning that is formed in a systematic way from the meaning of the old word can be called a suffix. Well, you might want to define this notion differently, but one has no way to know that beforehand. As for the difference between my example and your examples, yes I have acknowledged and expressed it, in about the same way as you have (the meaning of the suffix -gate does not depend on the meaning of the word gate).


----------



## apmoy70

In Greek (both Ancient and Modern) we use the verb *«ποιώ»* [pi'o] --> _to do, make, produce, act_ < Classical verb *«ποιέω/ποιῶ» poiéō* (uncontracted)*/poiô* (contracted) (PIE *kʷi-eu-/*kʷei-u-, _to gather, deem_ cf Skt. चिनोति (cinoti), to gather, collect, pick) as a very productive suffix, e.g:


*«Κοινωνικοποιώ»* [cinonikopi'o] --> _to socialise_
*«Παραμετροποιώ»* [parametropi'o] --> _to parameterise_
*«Χρησιμοποιώ»* [xrisimopi'o] --> _to use, utilise_


The noun *«ποίηση»* ['pi.isi] (fem.) --> _creation, production, poetry_ < Classical 3rd declension fem. noun *«ποίησις» poíēsis* (same meanings), a derivative of the Classical verb *«ποιέω/ποιῶ»* is also used as productive suffix for feminine nouns denoting completion of procedure or work, e.g:


*«Κοινωνικοποίηση»* [cinoniko'pi.isi] (fem.) --> _socialisation_
*«Παραμετροποίηση»* [parametro'pi.isi] (fem.) --> _parameterisation/configuration_
*«Χρησιμοποίηση»* [xrisimo'pi.isi] (fem.) --> _use, utilisation_ 


Also the productive suffix *«-ποιός, -ποιία»* [-pi'os] (masc. & fem.), [-pi'i.a] (fem.) < Classical productive suff. *«-ποιός, -ποιίᾱ» - poiós* (masc., fem.) denoting creator, producer, *-poiíā* (fem.), denoting manufacturing of produce, again a derivative of the Classical verb *«ποιέω/ποιῶ» *e.g:


*«Αρτοποιός»* [artopi'os] (masc. & fem.) --> _baker_
*«Αρτοποιία»* [artopi'i.a] (fem.) --> _bakery_
*«Οινοποιός»* [inopi'os] (masc. & fem.) --> _vintner, winemaker_
*«Οινοποιία»* [inopi'i.a] (fem.) --> _winery_
*«Ζυθοποιός»* [ziθopi'os] (masc. & fem.) --> _brewer_
*«Ζυθοποιία»* [ziθopi'i.a] (fem.) --> _brewery
_etc


----------



## franknagy

origumi said:


> But examples like this must be abundant in Hungarian as an agglutinative language, don't they?


You are right. *Kor* is the most apparent example.

Other examples, the list is not full.
*Hoz* = [he/she] is bringing something -> a ház*hoz* = to the house.
*Tol* = [he/she] is pushing something -> a ház*tól* = from the house. 
------
*Int* = [he/she] waves with his/her hand _once_ [e. g. to the drivers to start a race or the judge waves with his hand to the ketch ordering to behead somebody].
The suffix *-int* makes verb expressing a repeated movement to a verb expressing a sudden one-off movement.
Katt*og* -> katt*int* = crackle -> click;
patt*og* -> patt*int* = [the ball] is *pop*ping -> [the Aztec master]* snaps *a piece of obsidian for his tomahawk.
-------
*Hat* = Takes effect -> csinál*hat* = *can* make; al*hat* = *can* sleep.
-------
_The above words developed to suffixes are absolutely logical processes 
but this matches below seem to me accidental.
_
*Ért* = [he/she] understands -???-> a siker*ért* = for/pro the success.

*Ül *= [he/she] is sitting -???-> lengyel*ül* = in Polish language; török*ül* = in Turkish language; vitéz*ül* = just like a warrior.


----------



## Gavril

origumi said:


> But examples like this must be abundant in Hungarian as an agglutinative language, don't they?



Aggluntinativity (as I understand it) implies that affixes have a consistent form and a transparent meaning. But the use of -_kor_, -_tol_, -_int_ etc. in Hungarian seems to involve an obscuring  of earlier meanings: these suffixes have clearly different meanings  than the independent words from which they seem to be derived.

If  a language is one in which independent words can easily be turned into  affixes, I think the term for this would be something like _incorporating_ (e.g., "Language X is a highly incorporating language") rather than _agglutinative_.


----------



## franknagy

[QUOTE Gavril]Aggluntinativity (as I understand it) implies that affixes have a consistent form and a transparent meaning. But the use of -_kor_, -_tol_, -_int_ etc. in Hungarian seems to involve an obscuring   of earlier meanings: these suffixes have clearly different meanings   than the independent words from which they seem to be derived.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, as soon as Hungarian word became to a suffix, theirs meaning changed. Their earlier meanings were not obscured but they were modified following a certain logics.
Let me continue with the suffix: -ba/*-be = into*.
It comes from the word *bél* = *gu*t(s). _Is not is logical new meaning, is it_?
You can see the lost -l in the forms _into me, into you, into it ... = belém, beléd, bele or belé._
The corresponding forms of intestine are _my guts, your guts, his/her/its guts = belem, beled, bele._
[QUOTE armoy70]Also the productive suffix *«-ποιός, -ποιία»* [-pi'os] (masc. & fem.), [-pi'i.a] (fem.) < Classical productive suff. *«-ποιός, -ποιίᾱ» - poiós* (masc., fem.) denoting creator, producer, *-poiíā* (fem.), denoting manufacturing of produce, again a derivative of the Classical verb *«ποιέω/ποιῶ» *e.g:
[/QUOTE]
There are many scientifics words formed by the suffix *-φιλ *like hydrophil. 
...
Another examples of  the accidental match of Hungarian word and suffix comes.
1) Word:
*Vad *= *wild* (adjective),* beast (noun).*
*Vad*ász = hunter, a bestial person who kills wild animals just for fun. 
Suffix *-vad*:
Ki*guv*ad a szeme= His eyes are coming out from their sockets [because he is peeping the neighbors naked daughter].
A virág elher*vad* = the flower is withering.
Su*vad* = a layer of soil is slipping.
A kocsmában dar*vad*ozik = He is always the last guest of the inn staying until closing time.

As you can see the suffix *-vad* expresses *degeneration*.

2) Word: *tök = pumpkin*.
Suffix of verbs in second person plural -*tök.
The word and the suffix have no logical derivation.
*They can appear in the same word *tök*ölőd*tök**  = *You all are fucking about*.
*

The spherical shape of the squash explains the secondary and tertiary meanings of tök.
1) men's eggs,
2) *tök*életes = perfect,
3) *tök* jó= cool = very good, *tök*hülye* = *perfectly stupid*.
*
Let me add a Halloween dialog between Wife and Husband:


WMikor feküdtök le végre?When do you go to bed at last?HAmikor kész lesz a töklámpás,When the squash lamp will be ready.WMég mindig azzal tökölőd_tök_?Are you still fucking about that?HMég nem tökéletes.It is not yet perfect.W_Teli van a tököm_ a *tök*életlen amerikaiak tökhülye ünnepével._I am fed up with_ the cracked Americans' perfecty stupid feast.



W: Mikor felküd*tök* le?


----------



## Encolpius

rusita preciosa said:


> I'm wondering if your language has this process when a part of a word or a word becomes a  suffix?...



I've been thinking about the problem and do you think you can call it a "suffix" if you have only 3-4 words? You should form more words by suffixes.... 
But now I got what you want something like: пап*угай* > мам*угай*, бабугай, тётюгай


----------



## Gavril

franknagy said:


> Indeed, as soon as Hungarian word became to a suffix, theirs meaning changed. Their earlier meanings were not obscured but they were modified following a certain logics.
> Let me continue with the suffix: -ba/*-be = into*.
> It comes from the word *bél* = *gu*t(s). _Is not is logical new meaning, is it_?
> You can see the lost -l in the forms _into me, into you, into it ... = belém, beléd, bele or belé._
> The corresponding forms of intestine are _my guts, your guts, his/her/its guts = belem, beled, bele._



When I said "obscuring of meanings", I just meant that the semantics of the suffixes changed in an unpredictable way. I think this is true of all (or most of) the affixes mentioned on this thread, Hungarian or otherwise.


----------



## rusita preciosa

Encolpius said:


> I've been thinking about the problem and do you think you can call it a "suffix" if you have only 3-4 words? You should form more words by suffixes....
> But now I got what you want something like: пап*угай* > мам*угай*, бабугай, тётюгай


I'm not sure I understand your point. You can form any number of words with -holic and - gate, that would be understandable in a context. The word bridgegate appeared in the last few weeks based on a specific event. 
I also don't get the попугай-мамугай example...


----------



## ThomasK

Dutch does it as well, but like in English, the way Gavril points out in #4, which is more like grammaticalisation in fact. Examples: 
- ADJ + -*w*_*eg*,_ something like -_way_, -_wise _in English as in _gaandeweg_, _plompweg, leukweg_
- _V-ing/ N+s +* -wijs*,_ as in _clockwise _in English : _schrijvenderwijs/ bloksgewijs, dakpansgewijs

_There must be others, but I don't think we do it on the basis of proper names, as in English. We could do it though, and everyone would understand rightaway, I guess... 



CapnPrep said:


> The linguistic term is _secretion_ (not really sure why ), and since it is not exactly clear if the formant involved is a suffix or a root, linguists call it more vaguely a "combining form".


Isn't grammaticalisation, which mostly refers to a lexical item becoming a functional word, such as a conjunction, preposition, the basis of that? But *'secretion' *turns out to be the right name. I imagine it means detaching (as in _secret_): words are analysed (as compounds) and one of the parts is then detached from the other and attached to another word.


----------



## franknagy

[QUOTE from punctuate with my coloring]водовозы, паровозы, электровозы, ракетовозы, углевозы, and we can form  new words, like топливовозы (trucks with cargoes of fuel) or атомовозы  (trucks that are driven by atomic energy, even if атомоход [/QUOTE]You can see the -о- binding vowel and -воз from _возить=to carry_ -ход from _ходить = to walk_ in the above examples.


----------



## francisgranada

franknagy said:


> You are right. *Kor* is the most apparent example.
> 
> Other examples, the list is not full.
> *Hoz* = [he/she] is bringing something -> a ház*hoz* = to the house.
> *Tol* = [he/she] is pushing something -> a ház*tól* = from the house.
> ------
> *Int* = [he/she] waves with his/her hand _once_ [e. g. to the drivers to start a race or the judge waves with his hand to the ketch ordering to behead somebody].
> The suffix *-int* makes verb expressing a repeated movement to a verb expressing a sudden one-off movement.
> Katt*og* -> katt*int* = crackle -> click;
> patt*og* -> patt*int* = [the ball] is *pop*ping -> [the Aztec master]* snaps *a piece of obsidian for his tomahawk.
> -------
> *Hat* = Takes effect -> csinál*hat* = *can* make; al*hat* = *can* sleep.
> -------
> _The above words developed to suffixes are absolutely logical processes
> but this matches below seem to me accidental.
> _
> *Ért* = [he/she] understands -???-> a siker*ért* = for/pro the success.
> 
> *Ül *= [he/she] is sitting -???-> lengyel*ül* = in Polish language; török*ül* = in Turkish language; vitéz*ül* = just like a warrior.


I am sorry, but *kor *and *hat *are the only valid examples in your list. The suffixes _-tól, -hoz, -int, -ért, -ül_ have no etymological (or other) connection with the verbs _tól, hoz, int, ért, ül.  
_


----------



## francisgranada

franknagy said:


> [QUOTE Gavril] ...
> Let me continue with the suffix: -ba/*-be = into*.
> It comes from the word *bél* = *gu*t(s).


Yes, though the original FinnoUgric meaning of the correspondnig word was something like the "inner part", not exclusively gut(s). 


> *Vad *= *wild* (adjective),* beast (noun)  *
> *Vad*ász = hunter, a bestial person who kills wild animals just for fun.
> Suffix *-vad*:
> Ki*guv*ad a szeme= His eyes are coming out from their sockets [because he is peeping the neighbors naked daughter].
> A virág elher*vad* = the flower is withering.
> Su*vad* = a layer of soil is slipping...


_Vad_ is not a suffix, the suffix is only *-d* (originally with frequentative meaning), see also _halad, dagad, ragad_ .... The consonant "v" in -_vad _etymologically belongs rather to the preceding word *_suv-, *herv-, *guv-, _etc ... 


> 2) Word: *tök = pumpkin*.
> ....2) *tök*életes = perfect, ....


 There' s no  connection between the pumpkin and perfect ... _Tökéletes_ comes from the verb _tökélni, _not from _tök _(a Slavic loanword).


----------



## francisgranada

I guess cheese*burger* (< hamburger) could be another example.


----------



## rusita preciosa

francisgranada said:


> I guess cheese*burger* (< hamburger) could be another example.


----------



## francisgranada

Gavril said:


> Aggluntinativity (as I understand it) implies that affixes have a consistent form and a transparent meaning.


I agree (surely for Hungarian). Plus, these affixes (or formants/morphemes) can appear also in different positions/structures, not necessarily as suffixes (always perfectly maintaining their meaning), e.g. _víz*ben* _- *in* water; _*ben*nem_ - *in* me.  On the other hand, these "affixes" are mostly not analyzable (or derivable directly from existing words), at least not without deeper linguistical knowledges, as they underwent a long evolution, sound shifts, contractions,  etc ...

 I think that even the before mentioned Hungarian *kor* (post #5) does not "perfectly fit the requirements" of the original question of Rusita Preciosa as the older usage was e.g._ "az *kor*on"_ (_in that *age*/*time*; then_). Later the locative ending _-on_ was dropped, so today we have _ak*kor* (then), négy*kor* (at four o'clock_), _éjfél*kor* (at midnight),_ etc ... 

 However, this is a good example to demonstrate, how independent words can evolve in suffixes/affixes ...


----------



## AutumnOwl

In Swedish there is the suffix -is, which seems to be put in the end of many words.

Dagis (daghem) - daycare/pre-school
Nattis (natthem) - nightcare/pre-school (when the parents work at night)
Friti(d)s (fritidshem) - after-school care
Mellis (mellanmål) or (melodifestivalen) - snack or the Swedish contest to the European Song Contest
Trattis (trattkantareller) - funnel chantarelle
Bibblis (bibliotek) - an on-line library for kids


----------



## ThomasK

But what is the former lexical meaning, AO ? I thought of the hem/ gem-suffix found in a lot of Dutch toponyms, referring to someone's home, like _Tiegem _=Tiebout's home.


----------



## AutumnOwl

The -hem means home (daghem - day home; natthem - nighthome; fritidshem - leisure time home), that is a home for the kids to be in while the parents are working.


----------



## rusita preciosa

AutumnOwl said:


> The -hem means home (daghem - day home; natthem - nighthome; fritidshem - leisure time home), that is a home for the kids to be in while the parents are working.


 But -hem- has a meaning (home), it is a construction similar to some words I mentioned before (businessman, spokesman etc...). I was looking for suffixes that would be random, like -holic- in shopahiolic.


----------



## francisgranada

The following example will probably not fit the original "definition" of Rusita Preciosa, but let's see her opinion:

Some (mostly)  aristocratic family names in Hungarian have the ending _-házy/házi_, for example _Eszterházy_, _Pálházy _etc... Now, there are some words created by analogy (used more or less in humorous sense) ending in -_házi_:

_szarházi -_ (_szar _= shit) - a kind of a very negative person (it's difficult to translate it to in English ...)
_senkiházi _- (_senki _= nobody) - someone who comes from "nowhere", i.e. of little or no importance ...


----------



## ThomasK

rusita preciosa said:


> But -hem- has a meaning (home), it is a construction similar to some words I mentioned before (businessman, spokesman etc...). I was looking for suffixes that would be random, like -holic- in shopahiolic.


You're right, I was misled. But I don't think that works in Dutch.


----------



## franknagy

Fej = head is forms taboo diminutives in Hungarian.
Tök|fej = Squash|head = silly.
Segg|fej = Asshole.
Fasz|fej exists, too.

An addition to Francisgranada's examples:
Kutya|házi = "from dogs' house" means a wicked person.

An addition to ThomasK's -holic: workoholic.


----------



## jakowo

franknagy said:


> An addition to ThomasK's -holic: workoholic.




For whom we say workaholic ( < alcoholic)


----------



## ilocas2

another examples from English:

Hitler > Putler (Putin), Trumpler (Trump)...

selfie > helfie (selfie of hair), belfie (selfie of buttocks)...


----------



## Messquito

delicious > boobalicious, bootylicious, pinklicious
It's very informal, though.


----------



## franknagy

There is a "lak" noun in Hungarian which means "cottage" and the "-lak" verb ending which is used if the subject is 1st person singular and the direct object of the sentence is 2nd person singular or plural. 
This accidental match moved the fantasia  of some people who labeled their dogs' house as

harap-lak = 1. I bite you, 2. bite-cottage;
megugat-lak = 1. I bay you 2. Bark-cottage.
Such word-plays can be read on the frontage of human chalets, too:

vár-lak = 1. Im a waiting for you, 2. Castle-bungalow
Márta-lak = 1. I dip you, 2. Martha-chalet.


----------



## Red Arrow

Gavril said:


> - English -*like* and -*ly* (_kingly_, _slowly_, _lovely_ etc.) and their various Germanic cognates are thought to come from an independent word meaning "body" (cf. the archaic English word _lich_ "corpse").


In Dutch, "dead body" and this suffix are still written the same: *lijk. *The suffix is pronounced [lək] rather than [lɛik].


----------

