Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Back-formation is either the process of creating a new lexeme (less precisely, a new "word") by removing actual or supposed affixes, or a neologism formed by such a process. Back-formations are shortened words created from longer words, thus back-formations may be viewed as a sub-type of clipping .
Back-formation may be similar to the reanalyses or folk etymologies when it rests on an erroneous understanding of the morphology of the longer word. For example, the singular noun asset is a back-formation from the plural assets. However, assets was not originally a plural; it is a loanword from Anglo-Norman asetz (modern French assez).
In linguistics, back-formation is the process of forming a new word by removing actual affixes, or parts of the word that is re-analyzed as an affix, from other words to create a base. [5] Examples include: the verb headhunt is a back-formation of headhunter; the verb edit is formed from the noun editor [5]
In back-formation, a new word is created by removing elements from an existing word that are interpreted as affixes. For example, Italian pronuncia ' pronunciation, accent ' is derived from the verb pronunciare ' to pronounce, to utter ' and English edit derives from editor. [13] Some cases of back-formation are based on folk etymology.
For example, the word uneventful is conventionally bracketed as [un+[event+ful]], and the bracketing [[un+event]+ful] leads to completely different semantics. Rebracketing is the process of seeing the same word as a different morphological decomposition, especially where the new etymology becomes the conventional norm.
Fowler says both came from French "orienter", short in C18, long in C19.. Sometimes there is a forward-formation (Note: That is an example of a back-formation from "back-formation.") and then a back-formation: The verb "orient" produced the noun "orientation" that produced the verb "orientate" as a back-formation that means the same thing as "orient" and is now considered acceptable in British ...
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 00:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC) No. "Admix" would be a back-formation if it were shown that "admixture" came first. But "Admixture" is a regularly formed abstract noun.
Pages for logged out editors learn more. Contributions; Talk; Back-formations