A whiffle of chatter

Apparently, you might consider “whiffle” and “chatter” to be frequentatives of “whiff” and “chat” respectively!

A frequentative is a form of word used to express repeated or habitual action. So “chatter” is repeated/habitual/ongoing “chat”.

In English, they are most usually formed with an “-le” or “-er” suffix, and you can see a bunch of examples on wikipedia. But the suffixes are not productive, i.e. slapping one of them onto the end of a word doesn’t necessarily generate a frequentative or even a term that anyone will understand. Sometimes, the relation between the two forms is even a bit lost to time.

Though I feel there is something pleasingly quaint about the English frequentatives. Crumble, whiffle, clamber, nuzzle, sniffle. Why do they all sound so tremulous… so wobbly?

Frequaintatives?

The closest I can think of in Esperanto is the “-ad” suffix, which denotes repeated, lasting, or habitual action:

Babili, babilado
To chat, chatter

But that doesn’t sound very wobbly – more like business as usual. It’s got the advantage that everyone’s going to be able to get your meaning, pretty much no matter what word you stick the suffix on, but it’s definitely got me wondering about how to introduce some delicate wobbliness.

Is it sufficient to use a diminutive? The suffix “-et” reduces a thing to its small or diminutive form.

pluvi, pluveti
to rain, to drizzle

“To rain” already implies duration so I don’t think we need “-ad” above… but perhaps a combined “-adet” or “- etad” suffix (depending on whether the original word must be diminufied or made continual first) would make sense? Perhaps the slight unusualness of the construction would be enough to feel wobbly?

frapi, frapeti, frapetadi
to hit, to pat, to patter (?)

Or perhaps:

fuzi, fuzado, fuzadeto
to fizz, fizzing, fizzle (?)

Well it makes sense to me.