Talk:Expletive infixation

So at which point can a better example than unbefuckinglievable be inserted without the danger of immediate reversion by reactionary forces?

it is an example of tmesis rather than infixation, since true infixes are bound morphemes.

                              fgu jn  j ~

I'm glad this isn't a dictionary and I can just click on those words without having to spend all day looking for them in the dictionary. Nice confusing sentence ;p Morhange 23:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example

I have heard "unbe-fuckin-lievable" as often as "un-fuckin-believable". Who got the idea that "unbe-fuckin-lievable" is rare? It's a completely hopeless example.— Randall Bart 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your experience is regional or due to some particular community in which you're involved. I have NEVER heard "unbe-fuckin'-lievable" until I read this article. However, I have hung out with a number of different rather "salty" crowds (from cab drivers and cops in Chicago, through construction workers and recovering alcoholics in L.A. and teenagers in the greater Portland, Oregon area, and on to the computer nerds and others in the San Fracisco Bay area --- even a little time in NYC, a region famed for its ubuiquitous use of expletives. I think I can legitimately claim to have broad experience with the usage. The fact that you've heard the former form anywhere near as often as the latter is, well, in-fuckin'-credible. JimD 19:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randall, I too have NEVER heard the phrase "unbe-fuckin'-lievable." I don't doubt that you have heard it in common usage, but I have to agree with JimD that it is likely a regionally unique form. Because this page lists "*unbe-fuckin'-lievable" as ungrammatical for the purpose of exemplifying the role of morpheme-based tmesis in English phonotactics, and because you provide the only testimony for the grammaticality of "unbe-fuckin'-lievable," I am removing your assertion that "for many speakers, the simple phonological rule takes precedence." If others wish to provide testimony to the common existence of "unbe-fuckin'-lievable," I may be persuaded to change my position, but Randall Bart does not, in my opinion, constitute "many speakers." SPL Wolf 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in full agreement with Randall here. "un-fucking-believable" seems completely wrong to me and I've never heard anyone say it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.254.152.8 (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently debated my phonology professor on the merits of the two, as I agree with Randall and only hear "unbefuckinglievable", in fact I could only say it as well, as "unfuckingbelievable" sounds too stupid. If this is a regional thing, I've spent my whole English-speaking life in Philadelphia and New York. JesseRafe (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm with the unbe-fucking-lievable crowd. I grew up in Boston, and have spent time in New York and Ohio. Maybe it's an East/West thing? AdjectiveAnimal (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bad example. I've heard unbe-fucking-lievable, never un-fucking-believable. Whether it's an east/west thing or what, a better example should be provided. 165.82.4.98 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my novice formatting. Here is an example of the phenomenon you are discussing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Duoc9juM15w. The word "unbefuckinglievable" is also said by the character Georges Thomasen in the film "A Fish Called Wanda".-Jeff Glick

I too am in the unbefuckinglievable crowd. I have heard and used it many, many times, but I have never heard or seen unfuckingbelievable before reading this article, and I would deem it quite ungrammatical. The only possible slot for expletive infixation to me is immediately before a stressed syllable, preferably a primarily stressed one. Morpheme boundaries play no part whatsoever in possible infixation slots to me. Kokoshneta (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unbe-fuckin-lievable is the only natural version; it follows the linguistic pattern of every other existing example of naturally occurring expletive infixation

the origin of un-fuckin-believable is very simply from a screenwriter who was unfamiliar with this style of speaking but attempted to include it in a screenplay [you can think of un-fuckin-believable as achieving the same level of accuracy in portrayal of queens vernacular as tv/movies get when trying to portray guns] - everyone who sez un-fuckin-believable heard it on tv and then repeated it from having heard it that way, on the rare occasions that they ever say it - with enough resources, a linguist could actually find the american tv show that popularized it

people who learned to talk from their actual fathers in the tri-state area say unbe-fuckin-lievable 2600:8802:2607:5900:71D0:5C8A:25CD:B30C (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "Examples" Section

I have removed the "Examples" section entirely. My reasons for doing so are these: 1) It was essentially a random list of trivia, strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. The fact that some of the examples had citations does not make them any less trivial. 2) The examples listed were phenomenally redundant. 3) The main body of the article already contains several examples, as it should. MarritzN (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "ricockulous" because "cock" is neither an adjective nor a participle, and it replaces "dic(k)" rather than inserts into the word. --Atemperman 01:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC) erg 3 3 # L34 g l[reply]

What's the difference between this and an endoclitic?--87.162.44.28 (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An clitic requires a host. These words can stand alone:

un-fucking-believeable --> fucking

Possessive 's is often considered a clitic in English. Note that it cannot stand on its own:

[that guy]'s hat --> *'s

This, of course, is an enclitic, not an endoclitic. We have no real endoclitics in English (try looking at Tagalog). There is one historical left-over that is thought to have derived from an endoclitic, however. The /n/ in 'stand' is thought to be the present participle marker from Latin. Notice its absence in the past form 'stood'.

_____________________________________
My comment begins here. The above comment was not signed. Please edit. This is a separate topic but directly related to the article.

"Due to John McCarthy"? I would rethink that. "Developed by" is one suggestion. "Presented by" is another. I know the writer meant "attributable to," as in "due to the weather," but the use here in conjunction with a person's name is awkward. "Theory due to John McCarthy." Due to John McCarthy's what? His efforts? His research? In common usage, "due to" usually points to a common noun. Although pointing to a proper noun is technically correct, it seems incomplete. "Due to the Coast Starlight." Due the Coast Starlight doing what? Running late? The writer probably should have used the terms dictionaries present to define "due to": "attributable to" or "attributed to." Jgarvey1 (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't abso-fucking-lutely a counterexample to the morpheme theory?

If the infex had to come between morphemes, wouldn't we expect ab-fucking-solutely or absolute-fucking-ly? 96.255.9.115 (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case, the word "fucking" is inserted before the syllable with the primary stress. This occurs regularly. However, there are counterexamples, as listed in the article. At any rate, the inserted word should not break the prosodic feet up: irre-fucking-sponsible, not ir-fucking-responsible. 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:209F:14D3:D5E6:B369 (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]