To WM: Question about languages

[justjake]

This thread is for WM, but ANYBODY is welcome to answer. I only direct this to WM because he studies languages so much.

WidreMann, I am going to use Biblical terms to ask a question.

I have been reading some books and they use terms that I don't really understand where they come from. They take a person's name and change it by adding suffix's after their last names. Here are a few examples:

Calvinism, Pauline.

How do they determine these type of things? Are there set rules to govern these type of additions? Thanks for your help!

[WidreMann]

Well, there were rules at one time, but it's tough now because English uses several different suffixing traditions: native English, French, Latin (often similar or same as French), Greek and occasionally suffixes native to the source of the word. That is why it is impossible to predict the suffix indicating nationality. It is Chinese but English and you are German if you are from Germany (which is completely irregular). If you are from Greece, you are Greek and from France you are French.

-Ism is a suffix that's hard to define exactly what it means because it is applied to so many different things. It can (and in this case does) creates a noun that indicates philosophy or belief system: (John) Calvin -> Calvinism, environment(al) -> environmentalism. Whether it is added to a noun or an adjective, or even a verb, name or other part of speech doesn't seem to be particularly regular. This is because of the problem English has with irregular derivation of new words. We have a bunch of suffixes and particles that we can add to make new words. Sometimes, we just change around the part of speech, like making a verb out of a noun: classic example is "to host" from "host". The only change is usage. But the problem is, the new meaning is often not directly derivable from the suffix. So, when we put -ism on the end of the word, we really don't know what kind of thing we are going to be talking about just by looking at the -ism on the end, even though -ism generally indicates sometype of abstract implying belief system, philosophy or common phenomenon.

[justjake]

Thanks for your reply. Here is why I was asking.

Adam = Adamite

Noah = Noatic

Paul - Pauline

There doesn't seem to be a rhyme or reason for this stuff. It seems to be just pulled out of thin air. Any explinations as to how they do this? Plus what would Jake and Keisha be...Jakine and Keishatic?

[coriolis]

Jake, I'm no linguist, but here's my 2 cents: It may depend on the intended usage. In some of these it may be proper to drop the "e." Who knows with this language of ours.

Jakeism (a follower of Jake)
Jakeish (resembles Jake)
Jakelike (like Jake)
Jakeocratic (obscure form of government)
Jakeology (the study of Jake)
Jakeite (a lost race)
Jakeatic (related to Jakeism)
Jakey (acting like Jake)
Jakage (Jake's stuff)
Jaked (I've been Jaked)
Jakeorooni (a familiar form of Jake)
Jakeous (containing Jake)
Jakerly (heading in Jake's direction)
Jakery (production facility for Jake Cake)
Jakewise (following the examble of Jake)
Jakester (another familiar form of Jake)
Jakesome (two guys named Jake playing golf together)
Jakeship (your royal Jakeship)
Jakepathy (feeling for Jake)
Jakeoid (resembling Jake)
Jakesome (Full of Jakeishness)
Jaking (acting just like Jake)
Jakescent (gradually becoming Jake)

[WidreMann]

Like I said, these suffixes are irregular. Thus, an adjective, or substantive meaning "relating to", can be formed with "-ish", but also with a variety of other suffixes. The best way to find out which one is right is to either try saying it in a set-up sentence like "This man is Adam. Somebody said something similar to what Adam would say. Thus, what he said is very _____". In this case, you would say, "Adamite" (or at least that is the correct one), though I might say, "Adamish" or "Adamlike".

However, it seems that the only way to really know is that you just have to learn it. What's the past tense of "sink"? It's "sank", not "sinked" or "sought" (like "think" - "thought"). How do you know? You just learn it when you are a kid. Same way with this.

[WidreMann]

But, with suffixes added in rapid speech, only a few are used. For city and place names, either "-an"/"-ian" or "-ite" is added on. For example, the city I live in - Raleigh - is full of Raleighites. "-ish" is also used very frequently - as in "bluish" or "that's very WidreMannish of you to say that" (that might be said after someone makes a post that everybody finds extremely objectionable). These are productive suffixes. The other ones that aren't used very frequently are unproductive, so named because nobody uses them to form new words any more (but at one time they did).

I think that after writing these three posts, I have answered your question.

[JQ Public]

hahah ur too funny coriolis! normally i can kind of guess which suffix would go on a certain word

[streetsoldier]

Of all the adjectives you mentioned, justjake, "Pauline" is the most important in studying the NT; the epistles of Paul had more effect on the "universalism" (i.e. inclusion of non-Jewish, or "Gentile" converts) of what became Christianity than any other writer.

Had Paul not had such sweeping influence, Christianity would have developed as just another of several Jewish factions, and likely died out long before the fall of the Roman Empire.