Transitive or ditransitive verbs that can take a human direct object (or human indirect object, in the case of distransitives) are possible targets for the – ee suffix. In terms of the grammar of this suffix, this suffix is highly depended upon the syntax also.

• If the verb is transitive there is no object and no-ee. EDIT: As @John Lawler points out, there are indeed intransitive usages of escapee.

• If ee is intransitive, then subject is human, and – ee is a verb. Why is/was-ee ee used?

• If the verb is transitive but can’t take a human object, then – ee is not suitable.

• If the verb is ditransitive like give or tell then, the -ee corresponds to the indirect object. If the verb is ditransitive, then any verb can be used in this way without being reflected to it.

In all the above cases, the – ee will be understood semantically, but it may not be considered proper or formal. E.g Givee is understood as the person being given but recipient is preferred.

Transitive or ditransitive verbs that can take a human direct object (or human indirect object, in the case of distransitives) are possible targets for the – ee suffix. In terms of the grammar of this suffix, this suffix is highly depended upon the syntax also.

• If the verb is transitive there is no object and no-ee. EDIT: As @John Lawler points out, there are indeed intransitive usages of escapee.

• If ee is intransitive, then subject is human, and – ee is a verb. Why is/was-ee ee used?

• If the verb is transitive but can’t take a human object, then – ee is not suitable.

• If the verb is ditransitive like give or tell then, the -ee corresponds to the indirect object. If the verb is ditransitive, then any verb can be used in this way without being reflected to it.

In all the above cases, the – ee will be understood semantically, but it may not be considered proper or formal. E.g Givee is understood as the person being given but recipient is preferred.

Transitive or ditransitive verbs that can take a human direct object (or human indirect object, in the case of distransitives) are possible targets for the – ee suffix. In terms of the grammar of this suffix, this suffix is highly depended upon the syntax also.

• If the verb is transitive there is no object and no-ee. EDIT: As @John Lawler points out, there are indeed intransitive usages of escapee.

• If ee is intransitive, then subject is human, and – ee is a verb. Why is/was-ee ee used?

• If the verb is transitive but can’t take a human object, then – ee is not suitable.

• If the verb is ditransitive like give or tell then, the -ee corresponds to the indirect object. If the verb is ditransitive, then any verb can be used in this way without being reflected to it.

In all the above cases, the – ee will be understood semantically, but it may not be considered proper or formal. E.g Givee is understood as the person being given but recipient is preferred.

Transitive or ditransitive verbs that can take a human direct object (or human indirect object, in the case of distransitives) are possible targets for the – ee suffix. In terms of the grammar of this suffix, this suffix is highly depended upon the syntax also.

• If the verb is transitive there is no object and no-ee. EDIT: As @John Lawler points out, there are indeed intransitive usages of escapee.

• If ee is intransitive, then subject is human, and – ee is a verb. Why is/was-ee ee used?

• If the verb is transitive but can’t take a human object, then – ee is not suitable.

• If the verb is ditransitive like give or tell then, the -ee corresponds to the indirect object. If the verb is ditransitive, then any verb can be used in this way without being reflected to it.

In all the above cases, the – ee will be understood semantically, but it may not be considered proper or formal. E.g Givee is understood as the person being given but recipient is preferred.

In lexical words, an intensifier can be inserted as an intensifier. Tmesis is used to describe this construction. And yes, expletives are very often used as intensifiers here.

The word “whatsoever” is also found in others like “howsoever”, etc. , which are now words, which are now words in their own right.

What are the rules about where we stick the intensifier, based on prosody in English. We don’t find * unbe-fucking-believevable but we do find abso-fucking-lutely. What are some interesting things about the idea of non-whole (or, a whole) parts other people share?

Transitive or ditransitive verbs that can take a human direct object (or human indirect object, in the case of distransitives) are possible targets for the – ee suffix. In terms of the grammar of this suffix, this suffix is highly depended upon the syntax also.

• If the verb is transitive there is no object and no-ee. EDIT: As @John Lawler points out, there are indeed intransitive usages of escapee.

• If ee is intransitive, then subject is human, and – ee is a verb. Why is/was-ee ee used?

• If the verb is transitive but can’t take a human object, then – ee is not suitable.

• If the verb is ditransitive like give or tell then, the -ee corresponds to the indirect object. If the verb is ditransitive, then any verb can be used in this way without being reflected to it.

In all the above cases, the – ee will be understood semantically, but it may not be considered proper or formal. E.g Givee is understood as the person being given but recipient is preferred.

In lexical words, an intensifier can be inserted as an intensifier. Tmesis is used to describe this construction. And yes, expletives are very often used as intensifiers here.

The word “whatsoever” is also found in others like “howsoever”, etc. , which are now words, which are now words in their own right.

What are the rules about where we stick the intensifier, based on prosody in English. We don’t find * unbe-fucking-believevable but we do find abso-fucking-lutely. What are some interesting things about the idea of non-whole (or, a whole) parts other people share?

In lexical words, an intensifier can be inserted as an intensifier. Tmesis is used to describe this construction. And yes, expletives are very often used as intensifiers here.

The word “whatsoever” is also found in others like “howsoever”, etc. , which are now words, which are now words in their own right.

What are the rules about where we stick the intensifier, based on prosody in English. We don’t find * unbe-fucking-believevable but we do find abso-fucking-lutely. What are some interesting things about the idea of non-whole (or, a whole) parts other people share?

In lexical words, an intensifier can be inserted as an intensifier. Tmesis is used to describe this construction. And yes, expletives are very often used as intensifiers here.

The word “whatsoever” is also found in others like “howsoever”, etc. , which are now words, which are now words in their own right.

What are the rules about where we stick the intensifier, based on prosody in English. We don’t find * unbe-fucking-believevable but we do find abso-fucking-lutely. What are some interesting things about the idea of non-whole (or, a whole) parts other people share?

In lexical words, an intensifier can be inserted as an intensifier. Tmesis is used to describe this construction. And yes, expletives are very often used as intensifiers here.

The word “whatsoever” is also found in others like “howsoever”, etc. , which are now words, which are now words in their own right.

What are the rules about where we stick the intensifier, based on prosody in English. We don’t find * unbe-fucking-believevable but we do find abso-fucking-lutely. What are some interesting things about the idea of non-whole (or, a whole) parts other people share?