Back-formation is the process or result of creating anew word viamorphology, typically by removing or substituting actual or supposedaffixes from alexical item, in a way that expands the number oflexemes associated with the correspondingroot word.[1]James Murray coined the termback-formation in 1889.[2] (Oxford English Dictionary Online preserves its first use of 'back-formation' from 1889 in the definition ofto burgle; fromburglar.)[3]
For example, thenounresurrection was borrowed fromLatin, and theverbresurrect was then back-formed hundreds of years later from it by removing the-ionsuffix. This segmentation ofresurrection intoresurrect +ion was possible becauseEnglish had examples of Latin words in the form of verb and verb+-ion pairs, such asopine/opinion. These became the pattern for many more such pairs, where a verb derived from a Latin supine stem and a noun ending inion entered the language together, such asinsert/insertion,project/projection, etc.
Back-formation may be similar to the reanalyses orfolk etymologies when it rests on an erroneous understanding of themorphology of the longer word. For example, the singular nounasset is a back-formation from the pluralassets. However,assets was not originally a plural; it is aloanword fromAnglo-Normanasetz (modernFrenchassez). The-s was reanalyzed as a plural suffix.
Back-formation varies fromclipping – back-formation may change the word'sclass or meaning, whereas clipping creates shortened words from longer words but does not change the class or meaning of the word.
Words can sometimes acquire new lexical categories without anyderivational change in form (for example,ship (in the nautical sense) was first a noun and later was used as a verb). That process is calledconversion or zero-derivation. Like back-formation, it can produce a new noun or a new verb, but it involves no back-forming.
Back-formation may be particularly common in English given that many English words are borrowed from Latin, French and Greek, which together provide English a large range of common affixes. Many words with affixes have entered English, such asdismantle anddishevelled, so it may be easy to believe that these are formed from roots such asmantle (assumed to mean "to put something together") andshevelled (assumed to mean "well-dressed"), although these words with those meanings have no history of existing in English.
Many words came into English by this route:pease was once amass noun (as in "pease pudding"), but was reinterpreted as aplural, leading to the back-formationpea. The nounstatistic was likewise a back-formation from the field of studystatistics. In Britain, the verbburgle came into use in the nineteenth century as a back-formation fromburglar (which can be compared to theNorth American verbburglarize formed by suffixation).
Other examples are
The verbtranslate is a back-formation fromtranslation, which is from Latintrāns + lāt- +-tio.Lāt- is from the very irregular (suppletive) verbferō 'to carry.'Trānslāt- in Latin was merely a semi-adjectival form oftrānsferō meaning '[something] having been carried across [into a new language]' (cf.transfer). The result of the actiontrānsferō textum 'to translate a text' was atextus trānslātus 'a text that has been translated.' Thus the verb in English is really from a (semi-)adjectival form in Latin.
Even though many English words are formed this way, new coinages may sound strange, and are often used for humorous effect. For example,gruntled (fromdisgruntled) is used only in humorous contexts, as whenP. G. Wodehouse wrote, "I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled", or the character Turk in the American sitcomScrubs told another character, "I don't disdain you! It's quite the opposite – I dain you."[5] As it happens,gruntle anddain are both attested much earlier, but not as antonyms of the longer forms.[6]
Back-formations frequently begin in colloquial use and only gradually become accepted. For example,enthuse (fromenthusiasm) is gaining popularity, though today it is still generally considered nonstandard.[7]
The Latin prepositionversus, meaning against, has frequently been mistaken by children and teenagers as the present tense of a verb "to verse." A reference to a school sports competition "the Sharksversus the Jets" might be interpreted as "the Sharks are versing the Jets." While this use of the verb has been reported in North America and Australia since the early 1980s, very few dictionaries have accepted it as standard.[8]
The immense celebrations in Britain at the news of the relief of theSiege of Mafeking briefly created the verbto maffick, meaning to celebrate both extravagantly and publicly. "Maffick" is a back-formation fromMafeking, a place-name that was treated humorously as agerund orparticiple. There are many otherexamples of back-formations in the English language.
Abutler is often described as "one who buttles," a verb which remains non-standard.
Back-formations are frequent amongst river names in the England due to a number of reasons. Place names of Brittonic origin are especially susceptible to Folk Etymology and back-formations due to language and knowledge of the place names dying out with thearrival and settlement of Anglo-Saxon tribes. Frequently river names are derived from nearby settlements with the suffix -ford. Typically because it is assumed that the first half of the name is in reference to the river or stream. Below are some examples of these-ford back-formations.
River Alre
Theriver Alre in Hampshire, was named due to a false assumption that the nearby villageAlresford was named after the river which it was located near. In reality its name comes from theOld Englishalor.[9][10]
River Chelmer
TheRiver Chelmer in Essex is named after the town of Chelmsford (Chelmeresford) which is derived from the Saxon personal nameCēolmǣr.[11]
Back-formation inIsraeli Hebrew often violates the prescriptive rules of theAcademy of the Hebrew Language.[12] For example:
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)