Talk:-e

RFV discussion: June–July 2020

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

-e

Having a hard time thinking of examples where this is used. DTLHS (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

And we have no inhabitants of Category:English words suffixed with -e.

As a test, I googled "bike-e" (with a hyphen) - it assumed that I meant e-bike. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

All I can figure is maybe the creator had model numbers in mind, like if someone makes a model 14 vs a model 14e? - -sche (discuss) 21:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I had in mind. A marketing tool to indicate electronic or electrified models. -- 65.94.43.14 06:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Such as electrified versions Opel Corsa-e, Fiat 500e, etc. (similarly for electronic versions of products) -- 65.94.43.14 11:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I hate to split hairs but electric and electronic are not really the same ... i think we all agree the car sense is cited but I wouldnt count those as being examples of the electronic sense. —Soap— 17:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying that they are. The examples listed are for electric. I'll have to look through some parts catalogues for electronic versions of analogue/mechanical fixtures, for the electronic or internet connected things, and they'd usually be model numbers -- 65.94.43.14 01:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I would not really consider this a suffix. Marketing names are formed in all kinds of ways; there is a vague idea that e means electronic or e-mail etc., and it may be wedged in any-old-where (compare the use of the Internet @ in the Amstrad E-m@iler). If it's not particularly common then we probably shouldn't include it. Possible talking-points: -ex, pak. Equinox ◑ 17:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Synchronic Engish feminine

In words such as fiancée --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

But is it English? Everything I can think of (e.g. divorcée) is a borrowing from French, where it does, indeed, produce the feminine. Kiwima (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Tzotzil suffix

For a discussion which led to deleting Tzotzil word(s) suffixed with -e, see Talk:antse. - -sche (discuss) 21:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Gender-neutral or inclusive sense

Comparable to x, @, and as seen in les, latine, Latine: how best to handle this (at e? at -e? -e-?) is discussed at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2022/August#uses_of_x:_to_cover_at_x_or_as_affixes_-x_and_-x-?. - -sche (discuss) 23:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Alternative to -x

Some people use it as an alternative, saying it is more pronounceable in Spanish. See note at Latinx. Backinstadiums (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Old Irish palatalization

@Mellohi! Re diff, what is "Greene's first palatalization"? Google doesn't find that phrase anywhere on the Internet other than this page. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mahagaja This (good chunk of that page was written by me) is what it is. Effectively it is the palatalization of consonants between certain combinations of vowels, the 2nd palatalization is palatalization caused by later-lost word-final vowels, and the 3rd is palatalization associated with the syncope of even-numbered syllables. "First palatalization" and "third palatalization" turn up in other scholarly literature on the subject, and I said "Greene's" because David Greene was the one who defined the three stages. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: I also reworded the usage note to more directly state the palatalization conditions. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your new wording implies that the palatalization seen in -(a)ige (< *-ākiyā) is unusual or analogical, but I don't think it is. The section at w:Phonological history of Old Irish#First palatalization says that the first palatalization usually fails only "If the vowel before the consonant is ā and the sequence after is not -iy-" or "If the consonant is not coronal and the vowel before it is a stressed rounded vowel". In the case of *-ākiyā, the vowel before the consonant is ā, but the sequence after it is -iy-; and the consonant is not coronal, but the vowel before it is not a stressed rounded vowel (it's an unstressed unrounded vowel). —Mahāgaja · talk 20:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Historical *-āCiy- is expected to return a palatalized C, yes. I have a hard time seeing what in the usage note I wrote contradicts that (though I might have confused you since I revised the note a ton of times during a span of 15 minutes). *ā was not rounded, and *k was not coronal, hence it is palatalized by *-iyā. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

At the time I started writing the above, the note said, "This suffix palatalises the preceding consonant usually only when the consonant is a single intervocalic coronal consonant. Other consonants and clusters are generally not palatalised by the suffix," which relegates the k of *-ākiyā to the exceptional cases permitted by the hedges "usually" and "generally". I didn't see the rewrite of the note until after I had posted my comment. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)