affix

(redirected from affixes)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal, Idioms.
Related to affixes: suffixes, prefixes

affix

(a′fiks″) [L. affixus, fastened to]
An element attached to a word that alters its meaning, e.g., a prefix or a suffix.
References in periodicals archive ?
The distortion discussed above explains why a couple of affixes do not appear to be ranked uniformly in the three columns of Table 3: the crossing between P(N) curves concern -ita/-eta with respect to -bile and -(z)ione with respect to -(t)ore and -men to.
Looking now at the rest of Table 3, two interesting subgroups come into consideration, namely those of (nearly)-synonymous affixes competing in the same domain.
The other synonymous affixes are the pair -ita/-ezza, the two main devices in Italian to form quality nouns from adjectives.
If P is calculated referring to the whole corpus for all affixes, the less frequent ones are heavily favored, due to the presence of N in the denominator of (1).
On the other hand, three clearly derivational affixes sufficiently small in token frequency now rank above -mente.
9105 (12 affixes) </pre> <p>The high correlation values in (4) imply that the rankings obtained by applying Baayen's hapax-conditioned measure of productivity do not differ substantially from ours for the greatest part of the affixes considered.
This is not, of course, to suggest that the two affixes are completely identical: their "argument-structural" properties are clearly somewhat different.
We propose that the affixes -er and -ee have the specific lexical entries in (19)-(20), where each lexical entry now shows not only the features of the semantic skeleton, but also the particular conditions (if any) of its argument, and also the syntactic subcategorizations of each affix (that is, the categories of base each affix attaches to).
Our claim is that the basic semantic contribution of the two affixes is exactly the same, but the coindexation conditions of their arguments differ in small ways.
There is clearly more to be said about -er and -ee, but at this point we can at least summarize the answers that we have developed to two of the questions we raised at the outset, namely what -er and -ee mean, and why it is that affixes like -er and -ee, although clearly distinct, nevertheless sometimes derive forms which overlap in meaning or function.
Further, let us look briefly at the extent to which the actual derivational affixes of English and Dutch cover that paradigm.
Why should object-oriented affixes be less prevalent than subject-oriented ones?