Author Topic: The random etymology of the day (Read 237914 times)

Jonathon · « **Reply #25 on:** December 19, 2005, 04:35:13 PM »

Then you have my sincerest apologies. I'll be sure to dumb it down for you more next time.

pooka · « **Reply #26 on:** December 19, 2005, 07:46:40 PM »

I still don't believe that adult and adultery come from different stems. I think the verb adulterare was back formed from the participle of adolescere.

Jonathon · « **Reply #27 on:** December 19, 2005, 08:02:26 PM »

The problem is that adulterare originally meant "to corrupt," and then it became a euphemism for having sex outside of marriage. The connection between "adult" and "something that you might do when you're an adult" is tenuous enough by itself, but there's simply no way to connect the notion of adulthood with the notion of corruption.

PS: And technically, that wouldn't be a back-formation. Back-formations involve reanalyzing a word's morphology and then breaking off a piece to form a new word (like "burgle" from "burglar" or "televise" from "television").

PPS: And then there's this. Apparently it's formed from "ad-" plus "alterare," which means "to alter."

Jonathon · « **Reply #28 on:** December 20, 2005, 12:57:42 PM »

benevolent, a.

From Old French benivolent, benvolent, from Latin bene volent-em, from bene "well" + volent-em "wishing, willing," present participle of velle "to will, wish"

malevolent, a.

Classical Latin malevolent-, malevolens "ill-disposed, spiteful," from male "ill" (see MAL-) + volens "willing"

Funny how "well-wishing" and "ill-wishing" just don't have the same ring.

pooka · « **Reply #29 on:** December 20, 2005, 01:31:07 PM »

So what is it called when you turn a noun into a verb? I thought that was backforming. You know, like getting friended on Livejournal. :snicker: What was the other one? It had to do with email or internet something. Well, there's forumming.

Porter · « **Reply #30 on:** December 20, 2005, 01:35:33 PM »

Turning a noun (or anything else, for that matter) into a verb is called verbing.

Verbing weirds language.

Jonathon · « **Reply #31 on:** December 20, 2005, 01:36:07 PM »

It's a functional shift if changes parts of speech without changing form, and it's derivation if it changes parts of speech by adding affixes.

Brinestone · « **Reply #32 on:** December 20, 2005, 01:37:33 PM »

Backforming is taking an existing word and assuming part of it is a root, when it may not be. I think the best example of this is the verb edit, which is a backformation of editor. The assumption is that an editor is one who edits, when the word editor predated edit.

Jonathon · « **Reply #33 on:** December 20, 2005, 01:38:34 PM »

Quote

Turning a noun (or anything else, for that matter) into a verb is called verbing.

Verbing weirds language.

Jonathon · « **Reply #34 on:** December 20, 2005, 01:39:06 PM »

Quote

Backforming is taking an existing word and assuming part of it is a root, when it may not be. I think the best example of this is the verb edit, which is a backformation of editor. The assumption is that an editor is one who edits, when the word editor predated edit.

Oh, so my examples weren't good enough, huh?

pooka · « **Reply #35 on:** December 20, 2005, 01:43:15 PM »

Oh, right. I think it should be called verbializing, though. More sciency sounding. That and Nounation.

The thing about adulterare as a verb is that "ad" is a very common preposition in Latin. I would expect it to come as part of a compound with "ult..." as a root of some kind. But I don't know of "ult.." used in anything but "ultra".

It would be like if someone tried to tell you that a german word beginning in "ges-" was a free standing word with no deeper analyzable meaning.

Jonathon · « **Reply #36 on:** December 20, 2005, 01:45:17 PM »

"Ad" was both a preposition and a prefix in Latin.

pooka · « **Reply #37 on:** December 20, 2005, 01:46:40 PM »

Oh, the worst WORST example of that is forming "mentee" from "mentor".

Jonathon · « **Reply #38 on:** December 20, 2005, 01:47:20 PM »

Wow. That even trumps "home teachee." >.<

pooka · « **Reply #39 on:** December 20, 2005, 01:47:56 PM »

Quote

"Ad" was both a preposition and a prefix in Latin.

Yeah, the English distinction between the two is a little linguicentric.

Brinestone · « **Reply #40 on:** December 20, 2005, 02:01:33 PM »

Quote

Oh, so my examples weren't good enough, huh?

Good, yes. But in mine I got to use the words editor and edit, which made my heart go pitter-patter.

pooka · « **Reply #41 on:** December 20, 2005, 02:17:32 PM »

How does one spell in a single word someone who does a critique?

Porter · « **Reply #42 on:** December 20, 2005, 02:17:48 PM »

Critic.

pooka · « **Reply #43 on:** December 20, 2005, 02:18:33 PM »

I thought critics did reviews.

Jonathon · « **Reply #44 on:** December 20, 2005, 02:22:12 PM »

Critiquist.

Brinestone · « **Reply #45 on:** December 20, 2005, 02:24:27 PM »

Are you sure it's not critiquer?

pooka · « **Reply #46 on:** December 20, 2005, 02:26:21 PM »

Critiquer is what I was hearing in my head, but I wasn't sure how someone would spell it.

Jonathon · « **Reply #47 on:** December 20, 2005, 02:27:39 PM »

Quote

Are you sure it's not critiquer?

Hyperliteralness strikes again!

Actually, there is no word for that.

pooka · « **Reply #48 on:** December 20, 2005, 02:30:26 PM »

Well, I know they always call them crits on the Hatrack writer's workshop, but that sounds like a youth violence gang. Or an unpleasant medical procedure.

Porter · « **Reply #49 on:** December 20, 2005, 02:57:43 PM »

I still say critic.