Talk:Prefix

[Untitled]

Can anyone categorize the Greek numerical prefixes and Latin numerical prefixes?? No one has been focusing on any of the prefix articles lately. 66.245.117.3 15:03, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Computer science meaning

I couldn't find anywhere to put this when splitting the page, so here it is: Boogala boogala!

A prefix of a string

T=t_{1}t_{2}\dots t_{n}

is a string

P=p_{1}p_{2}\dots p_{m}

such that

t_{1}\dots t_{m}=p_{1}\dots p_{m}

, where

m\leq n

.

T	=	B	a	n	a	n	a
		Prefix means Prefix
P	=	B	a	n

æle ✆ 2006-03-28t02:18z 02:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this to prefix (computer science), and restructured suffix in a similar manner -- Nils Grimsmo 16:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused where you ment to send that. Could you by any chance try add me as friend of write a response using wiki. May find me hilariously stupid but I'm new to this only every searched wiki pages b4 never had an account or contributed anything yet would lil to understand how they work. If possible if you could also email me at markofmusic@gmail.com highly appreciate it! That way I can see how good notifications work. Also of I don't get one for your response here, anywhere on those site bug email NVR fails. If you do that for me thank you in advance sir! Vibe5 (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

last revision

I have undone the last edit of this page. The user replaced the first instance of the word "an" with "gay", a revision that is irrelevant and was probably a prank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.51.93 (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed spammy links

I removed the links referring to more 'comprehensive' information that didn't really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.50.40.127 (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Prefix (new)"

Is this section really supposed to be here, or is it the work of a troll? I'm just a guest, so I didn't know if I should delete this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.216.236 (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saving from stub status; spam

I undid some spam that was on this talk page, as it was very distracting to the real work/discussion I am about to do.

As part of a class, a group of mine is supposed to make significant revisions to a linguistics stub article. If you are watching this page and begin to see significant edits, that is the reason why! --Fjak (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

false bound morpheme claim and improper analysis of in-

First, the claim that all prefixes in English are bound morphemes is false. The prefixes of up, self, and in of upgrade, unselfconscious, and influx are all independent words as well as prefixes.

Second, the analysis if the Latin negative in- is not followed by any linguist. There are no separate i(g)-, il-, im-, or ir- prefixes. These are assimilated variants of in- before roots beginning in gn-, l-, m/b/p-, and r-. I am not good a charts, so I'll leave this comment here until I can work out how to merge the headings under in- while keeping the variations as examples. μηδείς (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English prefix

It's great other languages use prefixes and it is true that this article should mention that other languages use prefixes. But unless the example directly relates to how that language affects English prefixes, we don't need a list of prefixes from other languages. I mean, where would we stop? Why not list examples from all 6500 languages? I think not. That's why we have wikis in other languages and that nice little list on the side that directs people to that language. Want Russian language prefixes? go to the Russian wiki! In the spirit of being Wikipedia:Be bold, I'm deleting examples from other languages. This has been done at other articles such as Palindrome. Thank you. On a side note, wtf! Prefix NEEDS to be merged with English prefix just like they did with Suffix and English suffix. Masterhatch (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This honestly just seems like wanton removal of useful information. Just because the article is written in English, doesn't mean non-English info should be removed. This seems like complete nonsene to me, so I've undone your edits. If you disagree with this, take it up with WP:LINGUISTICS, and see if they agree with you. Orcaguy | Write me | Mon œuvre 22:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a dog in the hunt with this. But I can tell you it adds nothing to English wiki to have examples that have nothing to do with the English language. Examples in languages such as Japanese have no bearing on English prefixes (or suffixes for that matter). I mean, where do we stop? Have an example here for all 6500 languages? Examples from other languages should only be here if they share the same prefixes or English derives its prefixes from those languages. Your comment "removal of useful information" baffles me as there is nothing useful about a Navajo prefix in the English language wikipedia. I mean, what's the point in having wikis in other languages if we pile all those languages onto the English wiki? Just some food for thought. Ever heard of the expression "more is less and less is more"? I think that definitely fits both here and at suffix. Masterhatch (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is having this information bad for an English speaker? Wikipedia may not be an indiscrimante dump of information, but this is useful for people who are interested in it, just like every other part of WP. Just because you have no interest in it doesn't mean others won't. Only displaying information on certain languages on certain WPs helps very little people, and just obfuscates knowledge behind language barriers, creating an unecessary gap in knowledge on WP. Including prefixes of other languages gives a more comprehensive picture of this particular part of speech, as English is not a good representative of crosslinguistic variation.

I mean, where do we stop?

This is a bad argument. This can be argued for literally anything on WP. Let me reverse that question: if you were to remove this from Wikipedia, where do we stop? Should information relating to all other languages just be deleted off the project, just because it's not useful to certain English speakers? Should the thousands of articles about local cultures and customs be removed because they do not relate to me or my interests? Note that English Wikipedia is used by more than just native English speakers, as it's currently one of the largest collections of knowledge on the planet. Orcaguy | Write me | Mon œuvre 12:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents is that too many language articles are absolutely filled to the brim with extraneous examples, no curation at all. We can't include every language, nor should we try to. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an exhaustive list of examples. Obviously excluding non-English languages is not a good solution either, although it does solve the problem of giant uncurated lists. We could do with creating some guidelines on this, something like only one example per major language group, or making sure that every example is distinct in nature and adds something new to the article in some way. There's no easy solution for this, Speaking about this article in particular though, there isn't really a massive problem that I see with the examples. There are not too numerous, they're sourced and the languages are pretty diverse.--Megaman en m (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a suggestion I could get behind. Wikipedia has far too many examples from Indo-European languages that aren't especially different from one another beside minutiae. More diverse language selection leads to a more comprehensive understanding of a subject than 5 Romance languages with the same conjugation paradigms in a row. Orcaguy | Write me | Mon œuvre 03:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]