Talk:чудаковатый
Add topicLatest comment: 3 years ago by Brutal Russian in topic -ватый
-ватый
[edit]@PUC: Hello. May I ask where you got such a wonderful suffix -ватый? Gnosandes (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: Добрый вечер. Yes: see -ватый (-vatyj), which I did not create (see the page history). What's wrong with it? PUC – 22:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- @PUC: It's just the first time I see such a suffix. I do not know where the connecting vowel came from here... Gnosandes (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Gnosandes: Please move -оватый (-ovatyj) back to -ватый (-vatyj), your move is premature. What about adjectives ending in -еватый? @Tetromino, Brutal Russian, Thadh PUC – 22:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- And @Useigor PUC – 22:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Second that. First of all, any moves of this proportion should be discussed with the active contributors of the language at either the talkpage, WT:TR or WT:RFM, and second of all, seeing as Atitarev created this page, it seems unlikely that this is a wrongly/unthoughtfully created page. Whether we analyse чудаковатый as чудак+о+ватый or чудак+оватый is primarily a matter of choice, there is no real truth behind this issue, as behind many other suffixes. Thadh (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- @PUC: I created another page and renamed the first page. Gnosandes (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- @PUC In my opinion, the suffix is -оватый (-ovatyj)/-еватый (-evatyj) like [-овный (-ovnyj)/-евный (-evnyj)], -овский (-ovskij)/-евский (-evskij), -овый (-ovyj)/-евый (-evyj), -овать (-ovatʹ)/-евать (-evatʹ). —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I believe in standard generatively-informed accounts the suffix contains an alternating vowel dubbed yer. These accounts vary in abstractness, basically postulating the proto-Slavic vowels at their extreme. Optimality theory uses what's basically classical allomorphs (e.g. input /o/ > /e/ output after [+palatalised]). Government phonology can explain it as an empty vowel. Bottom line: the suffix contains a vowel, and I think we should give both the /o/ and /e/ allomorphs as basic forms. Brutal Russian (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Analyzing it as чудак+о+ватый looks very arbitrary. For at the Proto-Slavic level, this is obviously *√-o~ev-at-ъ. Where the first suffix refers to the second class and the second to the first class. But Russian is not a Proto-Slavic language, where we can select *o~e. Therefore, I think it is more correct to do everything like this чуд(↓)-ак(→D)-ова́т(↓D)-ый(x). Gnosandes (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the thing is that postulating a single o~e is what most analyses do. Our website just can't accomodate this.— We can't do it as "-ова́т-" separately from "-ый" because suffixes are given with their endings. Brutal Russian (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Analyzing it as чудак+о+ватый looks very arbitrary. For at the Proto-Slavic level, this is obviously *√-o~ev-at-ъ. Where the first suffix refers to the second class and the second to the first class. But Russian is not a Proto-Slavic language, where we can select *o~e. Therefore, I think it is more correct to do everything like this чуд(↓)-ак(→D)-ова́т(↓D)-ый(x). Gnosandes (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I believe in standard generatively-informed accounts the suffix contains an alternating vowel dubbed yer. These accounts vary in abstractness, basically postulating the proto-Slavic vowels at their extreme. Optimality theory uses what's basically classical allomorphs (e.g. input /o/ > /e/ output after [+palatalised]). Government phonology can explain it as an empty vowel. Bottom line: the suffix contains a vowel, and I think we should give both the /o/ and /e/ allomorphs as basic forms. Brutal Russian (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)