Talk:Juncture loss

"Nought" is sometimes taken as an example ("an aught" -> " a nought"). More likely, though, "aught" and "naught" are a matched pair, meaning "anything" and "nothing", rather like "ever" and "never" or Latin "ullus" and "nullus". Can anyone shed more light on this? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 13:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The 'adder' is called 'adder' in Dutch and 'otter' in German. Is it really certain that 'nadder' was the original form in English? --Mzzl (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge
Hi, rebracketing is a newer article, which seems to document much the same phenomena IMHO. Do you think it should be merged? --Kjoonlee 19:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearing some seemingly bad examples
If lithotrity is anything more than an ordinary compound of two Greek stems of the sort which we must have myriads of in English, the reason wasn't clear here; removed.
 * lithotrity from Greek lithōn thrutika ("stone-crushing").

I see this one as a backformation with misanalysis, but not more narrowly a rebracketing; prosthodontics didn't used to have different word divisions. Never mind, that is a case of 'juncture loss' of the second kind. 4pq1injbok (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * prosthodontics (= false teeth): from prosth(o)- + Greek odont-; odont- = "tooth", and prostho- arose by misdivision of "prosthetic", which was treated as supposed stem prosth- and suffix -etic, but actually came from Greek pros = "in front of" and thē- (the root of the verb tithēmi = "I place").