[Lexicog] Pejorative suffixes (more-ish)

[Mike Maxwell]

John Roberts wrote:
> Quirk et al (1985)... say in a footnote: "Where -like and -ish occur
> with the same base, the latter is relatively pejorative and more
> remote from literal comparison. In "manly", "manlike", "mannish", the
> first refers to physical or heroic qualities (in a male), the second
> is a simile, usually applied to nonhumans, the third refers to
> unwelcome masculine attributes (usually in a woman)." So with
> reference to your summary, "-like" gives a neutral comparison, "-ly"
> gives a comparison with positive connotations, and "-ish" gives a
> comparison with negative connotations - at least when all apply to
> the same base.
>
> However, I would still say it is the 'approximate' sense of "-ish"
> that is primary and not the 'pejorative' sense.

I suspect there's a general semantic principle here.  Probably it's well
known in the literature (y'all can enlighten me)--words expand to fill
the (semantic) space available.  The space available is whatever is not
taken up by other words.  So a word (like those ending in -ish) will
mean "having the quality of" in both good and bad senses, except that if
there's already such a word having more or less the approximate meaning
(the -like or -ly words), that word usurps part of the meaning range,
leaving only the specialized meaning for the -ish word.  (I wonder why
it's the -like or -ly words that take up the general meaning, rather
than the -ish ones?  Something like Aronoff's notion of blocking of '+'
affixes by '#' class affixes?)

Maybe this has s.t. to do with semantic drift, too.  So the word
"bullish" no longer has the meaning "like a bull", rather it has some
sort of "optimistic" meaning (not even the pejorative meaning).
Although in this case I confess I'm uncertain what word usurped the
"approximate" meaning, unless it's just the case that we don't need that
word much any more.  (Most of us aren't very familiar with bulls, so
maybe we don't need a word 'bull-like' any more than we need a word
'aardvark-like'. BTW, I was about to say that we don't need a word
'bully', then I realized that that word does exist, but has drifted so
far from its etymological origins that I didn't even recognize it as
connected--if indeed it is.)

All in all, very relevant to lexicography.
--
	Mike Maxwell
	Linguistic Data Consortium
	maxwell at ldc.upenn.edu


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/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/