Talk:Esperanto words with the infix -um-

Article title
I believe the title is unnecessarily long. Also, it is inaccurate because the item is more accurately described as an infix.

Are there any objections to moving the article to -um- or -um- (Esperanto), depending whether or not we need to disambiguate this from -um (a Latin declension)? I just want to get a rough idea before I file a formal move request. SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * According to Esperanto vocabulary (version of 02:38, 15 September 2012), -um- is a suffix. See suffix and termination and ending.
 * Incidentally, an Esperanto word can have "-um-" as the last part of the root (inherited from a Latin word with "-um" as an ending): albumo (albumo), maksimumo (maksimumo), minimumo (minimumo), radiumo (radiumo).
 * Also, an Esperanto word can have "-um-" as the last part of the root (but not from a Latin word with "-um" as an ending: bitumo (bitumo) from Latin bitumen (bitumen), and volumo (volumo) from Latin volumen (volumen).
 * –Wavelength (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for jumping to conclusions without making enough effort to research the terminology used to describe Esperanto grammar. However, I feel my point still stands about the length of the title. (Observe that neither of the proposed titles contains "suffix" nor "infix," so my factual error is moot.) Any further comments? SoledadKabocha (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The article was started by User:Kwamikagami, who I hope will provide input here before any move request is filed. The present title clarifies that the article is not about words like "albumo" and "bitumo".
 * In my understanding, the present title, "Esperanto words with the ad hoc suffix -um", is not too long. Many much longer titles are listed at User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Articles with long titles.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, sorry for not finding that information myself. I did try looking at WP:Article titles but searching for the words "long" and "length" revealed nothing useful to this case. I did not mean to imply that the title was excessively long in and of itself, but rather that it might be hard for some people to remember exactly without searching. "Ad hoc" seems like unnecessary verbiage.
 * Anyway, now that I know that objections potentially exist, I will drop the issue for a little while. On the other hand, are either of the titles I originally suggested plausible redirects? SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC) (last edit 04:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC))
 * The title is descriptive. I used one of yours as a redirect (IMO the other could refer to too many other things), though I'm not sure how much it would help in a search. I was thinking people would probably find this through navigating the other articles; if anyone wanted to look it up, they would presumably use Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. — kwami (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the point of adding "ad hoc" to the article's title? --JorisvS (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not much, I guess, other than indicating that it is not like other suffixes. — kwami (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The special nature of the suffix is noted in the lead (as it should be). The "ad hoc" does not add necessary specificity to the title, and is hence superfluous. I'd say we remove it. --JorisvS (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

missing def

 * Forms of execution also take -um-: krucumi 'to crucify', pendumi 'to hang', gasumi 'to gas', ŝtonumi 'to stone', dekumi, kvaronumi 'to quarter', palisumi 'to impale', radumi 'to break on the wheel'. Substitute forms with -mortigi 'to kill' are nearly as common: krucmortigi, ŝtonmortigi, etc.

dekumi is not defined; I guess ‘decimate’? (Why not dekonumi?) —Tamfang (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)