[Lexicog] rules when it comes to latin word roots

[John Roberts]

>
> just wanted to know if there are any rules to know which suffixes to
> use for a word with certain latin roots, like for, e.g. the word
> nubile has the root "nubere"; the suffix -ile is used along with it.
> Whereas for the word vespertine which comes from latin "vesperas" has
> a -tine attached to it. So how is it you should decide on the type of
> suffix for a word. Are there any similiar rules for roots of Greek
> origins. Can i post strange words here to see if they can exist?
>

arun

I don't know if we ever really answered your question. Peter Kirk suggested
there is a "rule" in English word-formation that only Latin suffixes should
go with Latin roots and only Greek suffixes should go with Greek roots. I
disputed this on the grounds that most English speakers do not know the
difference. Even for scientific/medical terms you can find plenty of
counter-examples to Peter's rule. For example, while most roots with the
suffix *-pathy* have a Greek origin, there are examples of terms with a
Latin root, e.g. *angiopathy*, *naturopathy*, *retinopathy*, *sociopathy*,
*lymphadenopathy*.



It is also the case that once a word enters into common English usage it
becomes subject to English word formation rules, and Greek or Latin
etymology is not important. Quirk et al (1985: 1522-1523) say that while the
conventions of neo-classical word formation still flourish in certain
learned areas of vocabulary, particularly in the natural sciences, English
has adopted and adapted a large number of Latin and Greek word elements to
its own purposes. Even so stress patterns on words can usually indicate
origins. Those English words with a Germanic or early French origin have
fixed stress. The primary stress stays on the stem syllable regardless of
the affixes that word formation might add. E.g.



PASSion

PASSionately

disPASSionately



vs.



TELegraph

teLEgraphy

teleGRAPHic



Also with some classical borrowings the phonological rules of the donor
language have been incorporated into English word formation rules. E.g.
*-al* 'pertaining to, relating to' is a very productive adjectival suffix
and comes originally from Latin, and can be found in words like *tribal*,
*judgmental*, *educational*, etc. It has an allomorph *-ar* in English which
continues the dissimilation process from Latin of alternating with *-al*
when the root ends in *l*. E.g. *polar* (Latin), *scalar* (postLatin).



One of the first things you need to know about word-formation in English are
the processes that are commonly used. These are:



AFFIXATION, CONVERSION (no formal change), e.g. *bottle* (N) -> *bottle*
(V), COMPOUNDING, BACK-FORMATION, e.g. *editor* -> *edit*, REDUPLICATION,
e.g. *goody-goody*, *walkie-talkie*, CLIPPINGS, e.g. *examination* ->
*exam*, ACRONYM, e.g. *UFO*, BLENDS, e.g. *smoke* + *fog* -> *smog*,
ANALOGY, e.g. from *alcoholic* -> *workaholic* (*-aholic*, is not a suffix).



If you are particularly concerned about suffixation then you also need to
know what are the suffixes available. Urdang (1982) lists 1545 suffixes and
word-final elements of English and -tine, for example, is not listed. While
*nubile* has the suffix *-ile* 'of, pertaining, or appropriate to' the word
*vespertine* actually has the suffix *-ine* 'of, belonging to' and the *s*
at the end of *vespers* has been replaced by *t*.



You would also need to know all their functions. For example, *-ine* 'a
female person' from the Middle English *-ina, -ine, in* forms nouns such as
*Josephine* whereas *-ine* from the Middle French *-in(e)* forms adjectives
and has two meanings: 1. 'of, belonging to' e.g. *marine*, *alpine* and 2.
'made of' e.g. *gabardine*, *opaline*.



On the other hand, you are not even limited to the 1545 suffixes and
word-final elements listed in Urdang (1982). In the 1980s *-bot* 'automatic,
self-operating' appeared by analogy with *robot* as a productive "suffix" in
English Sci-Fi writings in words like *knowbot* (knowledge robot), and
*nanobot* (very small self-operating machine).



So you can basically do whatever you like in using suffixes to make new
English words, within the parameters outlined above.



--------------------------



But I had a question for the rest of the group. Should affixes be included
in a dictionary? Why do I have to go to specialist dictionaries like Urdang
(1982) and Urdang (1998) to find out about English affixes?





John Roberts





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/HKE4lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/