Talk:apple-bearing

Sum of Parts

I do not have much experience deleting pages, but is this word not an obvious sum of parts (that should be removed)? —TeragR ^disc./con. 20:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@TeragR:, You can open a discussion at WT:RFD Leasnam (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

RFD discussion: March–June 2018

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

apple-bearing

• I think this is clearly a SOP, but am inexperienced at this. —TeragR ^disc./con. 21:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Otherwise we need to add pineapple-bearing and pear-bearing, amongst many others. Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• I can't think of a reason to save this one, as an apple-bearing tree is normally called an apple tree. On the other hand, I agree with the entry for fruit-bearing, which covers all fruit-bearing plants. DonnanZ (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep all such, if really cited. There may even be separate senses here. Ƿidsiþ 09:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  Changing to keep per -sche. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• There is Old English æppelbære. This could recommend keeping, or not. Like, keep it if it has a solid-written ancestor term. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  I don't think it can be a direct ancestor. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  I think it could be, albeit an altered one--made over to fit modern word formation. As it evolves into Middle English, it would be *appelbere, then into EME as *applebeare, which doesn't make much sense according to modern usage...it would then , naturally, have to be altered to fit current ways of expression by appending an -ing to it, making apple-bearing--now it sounds sensible. Of course, none of this is recorded for our ease, but that's no matter. One cannot convince me that during Middle English there was no term meaning "apple-bearing". There had to have been. We just don't see it recorded. It's a mundane and quite ordinary concept Leasnam (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Leasnam I found attestation for "olive-berende" in ME, so the one-word structure did exist then--and with the participle ending -ende which later gave way to -ing. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

This does seem SOPpy, but... although it ain't common, I just cited applebearing with citations from the 1600s through the 2000s, which lends support to keeping this per WT:COALMINE, and to the idea that it's sometimes regarded as a single word, and even lends some support to the possibility that it's an inherited form (one would need to look for Middle English examples to find more evidence of that). - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep, then, via coalmine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. This is nothing more than "apple" + "-bearing". "apple" could be replaced by anything that can be borne. Create -bearing if need be. Mihia (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

We had -bearing, and we deleted it ! :-o Leasnam (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a suffix. DonnanZ (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

On reflection, probably the right decision, else where would it end ... Mihia (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, we have load-bearing, weight-bearing, etc. Leasnam (talk)
• Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Kept: no consensus for deletion, and policy (WT:COALMINE) backs keeping it. - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)