[Lexicog] Pejorative suffixes

[mohd hans]

Dear Lexicolish,
I would like to draw your attention to the facts you all know that semantic changes and shift are language-universalish.  In Arabic deminutives appear as infixes or in other forms, and they are, like most languages, productive.   From a diminutive usage either an
> endearing or a pejorative term can develop, depending on the context or that particular use in some situations.Thus, /kalb/ "a dog" is used as a name of a person "kulayb". In some dialects of Arabic this name can be looked as a pejorative term whereas in other dialects it's a term of endearment.
Thank you for your contributions
Muhammad
>


"Dr. Hayim Y. Sheynin" <hsheynin at gratz.edu> wrote:
I encountered another recent -ish adjective New Yorkish, e.g. see
The following title:
      New Yorkish : and Other American Yiddish stories / selected and
translated by Max Rosenfeld.  Philadelphia : Sholom Aleichem Club Press
; [Southfield] : Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations, c1995.

In general suffixes -ish and -ich are more productive in Jewish American
Speech, most probably under the influence of Yiddish which is carring
these
Germanic suffixes, but as far as I know they do not have a pejorative
meaning. Since the Jews use 'goyim' instead 'Gentiles' to distinguish
between Jews and non-Jews, the adjective goyish was coined, but I do not
know on what stage it was coined, maybe still in Yiddish and only
afterwards was used in American English.

Best wishes,
Hayim


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kirk [mailto:peterkirk at qaya.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 12:34 PM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Lexicog] Pejorative suffixes


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!


--
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 Links








Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20050330/a61ca35f/attachment.htm>