[Lexicog] Pejorative suffixes

Sun Mar 27 01:03:59 UTC 2005

I believe we should include affixes in our dictionaries, but with some
caution and with some differences in the way we describe them. The American
Heritage Dictionary (AHD) has an entry for -ish and lists several senses:

-ish. Indicates: 1.a. Of the nationality of; for example, Swedish, Finnish.
b. Having the qualities or character of; for example, childish, sheepish,
womanish. c. Tending to or preoccupied with; for example, bookish, selfish.
d. Somewhere near or approximately. Used informally in naming hours or
years: She's fortyish. 2. Somewhat or rather; for example, greenish. [Middle
English -is(c)h, Old English -isc, from Common Germaic -iskaz (unattested),
corresponding to Greek -iskos, diminutive noun suffix.]

If we do a search for words ending in -ish, we find that almost all of them
are adjectives. There are some nouns like 'rubbish' and some verbs like
'finish', but they don't seem to be regularly formed from -ish. Here is the
list of adjectives that my search turned up:

snobbish, childish, outlandish, standoffish, selfish, waggish, piggish,
sluggish, brackish, prankish(?), bookish, devilish, ticklish, hellish,
foolish, girlish, churlish, mulish, ghoulish, stylish, womanish, mannish,
sheepish, lumpish, foppish, feverish, doltish, skittish, loutish, brutish,
cliquish, babyish, boyish

There are some regular patterns based on roots from specific domains: people
(childish, girlish, womanish, mannish, babyish, boyish), animals (piggish,
sluggish, mulish, sheepish), and devils (devilish, hellish, ghoulish). The
rest of the roots seem to be drawn from a variety of domains. But what is
striking is that almost all of them are pejorative. This is not noted in the
AHD entry.

The AHD entry also does not note the part of speech of the derivative words.
Since -ish is a derivative suffix, a dictionary entry should note the part
of speech of the root and the part of speech of the resultant derivative. It
should also note the semantics of the root and the semantics of the
derivative. In the case of -ish the first sense of the AHD entry starts with
a noun that refers to a citizen of a country and produces an adjective that
describes a person who is from that country (He is Swedish). We could use
the convention n:adj to indicate the before and after part of speech, and
the convention 'citizen of a country: a word describing a citizen of the
country' to indicate the before and after semantics. The word 'Swedish' can
also describe something belonging to the country (Swedish food), so we would
need another sense: n:adj. 'citizen of a country: a word describing
something belonging to a country'. 'Swedish' can also be a noun that refers
to the language spoken by those people: n:n. 'citizen of a country: language
of the country'. The last two AHD senses can be easily handled this way.  d.
num:num a cardinal number referring to a point in time: a time near the time
of the cardinal number 2. n:adj primary color term: having a
non-prototypical hue of the color term.

The AHD senses b. and c. cover the adjectives listed above (snobbish, etc).
When we try to describe them, we have several problems. Most of the roots
are nouns, but not all (stand off (standoff n. has a different meaning and
is not the root of standoffish)). Some of the roots are unattested
(*skit:skittish, except for the related word 'skitter'). But as a general
rule we can say that this sense of -ish is n:adj. However this raises the
issue that we should not expect derivational affixes to be without
exception.

A more difficult problem is the semantic relationship of root to derivative.
Some are straightforward (man:mannish) and fit the pattern 'a type of person
or animal: a person who behaves like that type of person or animal'. We
would say that this is the prototypical semantic relation. I would say that
the primary sense of the following fit the prototypical pattern: snobbish,
childish, waggish, piggish, sluggish, devilish, foolish, girlish, churlish,
mulish, ghoulish, womanish, mannish, sheepish, foppish, doltish, loutish,
brutish, babyish, boyish.

I can find no systematic pattern in the residue (outlandish, standoffish,
selfish, brackish, prankish, bookish, ticklish, hellish, stylish, lumpish,
feverish, skittish, cliquish) except a very general 'something X: a word
describing something Y that is somehow related to something X'. Some of
these normally describe a person (standoffish), but others normally describe
actions (outlandish behavior/suggestion/clothing), animals (skittish horse),
or things (brackish water). So in both part of speech and meaning we find a
prototypical pattern and non-prototypical exceptions. Since prototypical
effects are to be found in much of language, it is no surprise to find it
here too.

Here is my attempt at an entry for -ish:

-ish derivational affix 1. n:adj. -ish is added to a noun that refers to a
type of person or animal. The resulting adjective describes a person who
behaves, usually in a negative way, like that type of person (childish) or
animal (sheepish). -ish can also be added to a noun that refers to a thing
(bookish), and the resulting adjective can describe behavior (outlandish) or
something related to the root (hellish). 2. n:n. When added to a noun that
refers to a citizen of a country, the resulting noun refers to the language
spoken by the citizens (Swede:Swedish). 3. num:num. When added to a numeral
that refers to a point in time or a person's age, the resulting numeral
refers to a time close to the root (six (o'clock): sixish; forty (years
old): fortyish). 4. n:adj. When added to a noun that refers to a primary
color term, the resulting adjective describes something that is close in
color to the root (bluish).

Ron Moe

-----Original Message-----
From: David Tuggy [mailto:david_tuggy at sil.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 10:59 AM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Lexicog] Pejorative suffixes

Peter Kirk wrote:

> On 26/03/2005 16:10, David Tuggy wrote:
>
> >**Comments from David Tuggy below**
> >
> >
>
> Thank you, David. Just one further comment:
>
> >
> >
> >... I find it interesting
> >that the nationality/language sense, though extensively exemplified, is
> >not productive, in comparison with the -ese or especially the -an
> >suffixes with those meanings. The only -ish formation of this type that
> >I know of being coined in my lifetime is "Yerkish", the language taught
> >to chimpanzees at Yerkes, which was likely calqued on "Turkish".**
> >
> >
> >
> Well, there is "Biblish", which has been extensively used on another
> list which you and I are on. But this is perhaps not so much Bible+-ish
> as a compound of Bible and English. But I would agree that -ish for
> languages and peoples is no longer productive, having had its day
> probably in the 19th century when it was used more widely than today.
> "Canaanitish" and "Israelitish" were both used in the 19th century, but
> then both are in the King James Bible.
>
> But what about Elvish, Dunlendish, Orkish, and (as languages) Mannish
> and Dwarfish? These are 20th century coinages, all in The Lord of the
> Rings (most in Appendix F), although maybe before your lifetime!

Yes, I should have thought of those. (Shows again how dangerous it is to
say "There are no X.") Tolkien, of course, is being consciously archaic
in much of his morphology (which he invented before my lifetime, but
published during it.) It does give a wonderful flavor to his world(s).

>
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter at qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release Date: 25/03/2005
>
>
> *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
> ADVERTISEMENT
> click here
>
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1293aggq6/M=298184.6191685.7192823.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1709195911:HM/EXP=1111944859/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.
netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *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
>
<mailto:lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

Yahoo! Groups Links

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/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/