Actually I'd say it was more likely to be un-fucking-believable. When I say the two out loud that sounds much better to me. I have trouble with it interrupting something I know to be a morpheme.
Counterevidence to my hypothesis right there.
On the other hand, you've just said you have trouble using it as an infix.
See:
If it wasn't an infix it could never interrupt morphemes.
What everyone agrees about is that with "fucking" we have unit that sometimes interrupts morphemes.
It behaves like infixes do in other languages.
According to the if-it-quacks-like-a-duck theory, it has to be an infix.
But according to the if-it-looks-like-a-duck, it has to be a word (see, it contains morphemes: "fuck"+"ing"; morphemes don't contain morphemes).
You've already defined "infix" as "affix" and "affix" as "a bound morpheme". So the element in "fucking" in "fucking ambidextrous" and "ambifuckingdextrous", are not the same element, even if they look like it.
Problem: Quacks like a duck, but looks like... two ducks tied together? Um, the metaphor fails me here.
So: it interrupts a morpheme, so it has to be an infix. Which means that anything that interrupts a morpheme has to be an infix. Which means that the infix has been zero-derived from the word "fucking", it's composite morphemes stripped of morpheme status. But where does it end?
What if I said, for the puprose of argument in this thread, "abso-I-bet-you-expected-fucking-here-lutely", or "abso-you're-not-getting-that-word-here-no-lutely". This is clearly on-the-spot improvisation, but I'm using a definite pattern here. How would you describe it?
I'm first making up a clause, then zero-deriving a morpheme from it, and then inserting it into the morpheme "-solute-"? To be honest, I find it a bit simpler to just say that I interrupted a morpheme with a clause.
To me it sounds like people are making up the zero-derivation step (unless you get around that in your theory somehow) in order to avoid facing up to the evidence that words can interrupt morphemes, if the speaker so wishes.
So what's the benefit of having "fucking" be an infix (apart from theoretic aesthetics)?
There's one thing I haven't addressed yet, and I'll go all the way back to Prawn's post for that:
For [duck] = [infix], "fucking":
- quacks like a duck
- doesn't really look like one
- but it might just fill the same ecological niche as one.
"Fucking" is an intensifier. Is there a clue in function?
I tend to think of inserting "fucking" into a morpheme as a weird sort of word compounding; but are there word compounds where one of the compound words is an intensifier? [I can't think of any.] I do think intensifier function lends itself better to infixes.
None of this is important to writers. Using it is
far easier than describing it.
Veering back to the OP, I'm afraid this is the sort of thing that happens if you wander in and say you'll answer all questions. Do feel free to join in the games -- we do love other grammar nerds! But also, do bear in mind that this place has its share of language experts who've been answering questions for rather a long time
Ah, but now we've also alienated eraser and erased a panda from the earth, in the process. All because of terminology/theory nitpicks. Can't help it. Suppose, I'm a junkie.
