Matches in DBpedia 2015-10 for { ?s ?p "In etymology, back-formation is the process of creating a new lexeme, usually by removing actual or supposed affixes. The resulting neologism is called a back-formation, a term coined by James Murray in 1889. (OED online first definition of 'back formation' is from the definition of to burgle, which was first published in 1889.)Back-formation is different from clipping – back-formation may change the part of speech or the word's meaning, whereas clipping creates shortened words from longer words, but does not change the part of speech or the meaning of the word.For example, the noun resurrection was borrowed from Latin, and the verb resurrect was then backformed hundreds of years later from it by removing the ion suffix. This segmentation of resurrection into resurrect + ion was possible because English had examples of Latinate words in the form of verb and verb+-ion pairs, such as opine/opinion. These became the pattern for many more such pairs, where a verb derived from a Latin supine stem and a noun ending in ion entered the language together, such as insert/insertion, project/projection, etc.Back-formation may be similar to the reanalyses of 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 is originally not a plural; it is a loanword from Anglo-Norman asetz (modern French assez). The -s was reanalyzed as a plural suffix.Back-formation may be particularly common in English since many English words are borrowed from Latin, French and Greek, giving English a large range of common affixes. Many words with affixes have entered English, such as dismantle and dishevelled, and it may therefore be easy to believe that these are formed from roots such as mantle (meaning to put something together) and shevelled (meaning well-dressed) when these words actually have no real history of existing in English."@en }
Showing triples 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 triples per page.
- Back-formation abstract "In etymology, back-formation is the process of creating a new lexeme, usually by removing actual or supposed affixes. The resulting neologism is called a back-formation, a term coined by James Murray in 1889. (OED online first definition of 'back formation' is from the definition of to burgle, which was first published in 1889.)Back-formation is different from clipping – back-formation may change the part of speech or the word's meaning, whereas clipping creates shortened words from longer words, but does not change the part of speech or the meaning of the word.For example, the noun resurrection was borrowed from Latin, and the verb resurrect was then backformed hundreds of years later from it by removing the ion suffix. This segmentation of resurrection into resurrect + ion was possible because English had examples of Latinate words in the form of verb and verb+-ion pairs, such as opine/opinion. These became the pattern for many more such pairs, where a verb derived from a Latin supine stem and a noun ending in ion entered the language together, such as insert/insertion, project/projection, etc.Back-formation may be similar to the reanalyses of 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 is originally not a plural; it is a loanword from Anglo-Norman asetz (modern French assez). The -s was reanalyzed as a plural suffix.Back-formation may be particularly common in English since many English words are borrowed from Latin, French and Greek, giving English a large range of common affixes. Many words with affixes have entered English, such as dismantle and dishevelled, and it may therefore be easy to believe that these are formed from roots such as mantle (meaning to put something together) and shevelled (meaning well-dressed) when these words actually have no real history of existing in English.".