a suffix question

[sweet clementine]

so, I was making up a word for my Humanities of Asia paper and I asked my roommate if she liked "philisophicality" better than "philisophicalness" and she said she hates words that end in "ness" and thinks they should all be replaced with "ality".  I was just wondering what the difference is between them, or if there is a difference, and how did they each develop?

[Tante Shvester]

When she gets weary, try a little tenderality.

[Annie Subjunctive]

It seems to me that there would be a nuanced difference. As in, philosophicality would be someone's inclination to be philosophical, whereas philosophicalness would be an attribute with which they acted. "His cooking was dripping with philosophicalness."

[The Genuine]

I wouldn't use either word in a paper.

[Jonathon]

The suffix -ality is actually two suffixes, -al + -ity, which derive from Latin. -al attaches to Latinate words to form adjectives or occasionally nouns, and -ity can then attach to form nouns.

-ness comes instead from Old English and is a little less restricted in its application. Your roommate's preference is rather irrational, because -ity or -ality simply don't work on a lot of words. I mean, happyity? Really?

I think the biggest difference is one of register—the Latin suffixes can sometimes sound a little bit more formal or elevated than the English equivalents.

[Porter]

I was making up a word for my Humanities of Asia paper

There's your problem.

[saxon75]

I propose that we all henceforth use "happyality."  Or, if you prefer, "happiality."

[Tante Shvester]

I favor The Untouchables, with Ellioticality.

[sweet clementine]

I was making up a word for my Humanities of Asia paper

There's your problem.

It certainly was not my problem.  It fit perfectly and conveyed my meaning.  Where would we be if Shakespeare or Chaucer's English teachers had told them to stop making up new words?

[goofy]

It certainly was not my problem.  It fit perfectly and conveyed my meaning.  Where would we be if Shakespeare or Chaucer's English teachers had told them to stop making up new words?

Shakespeare and Chaucer didn't have English teachers. So it is your problem.

I find it interesting that we have both reality and realness.

[pooka]

I don't know that I've heard realness before.

I used to whinge about wellness.

[Jonathon]

Don't forget normality, normalness, and normalcy.

[Porter]

I was making up a word for my Humanities of Asia paper

There's your problem.

It certainly was not my problem.  It fit perfectly and conveyed my meaning.  Where would we be if Shakespeare or Chaucer's English teachers had told them to stop making up new words?

I've got no problems with making up new words, or using existing words in new ways.  Verbing can awesome language, as it were.  But it's still not a good idea to use made up words in formal writing, such as academic papers.  

[sweet clementine]

I know.  I'll let you know if I get marked down for it.  This was the context:
"It is, however, at the moments when his writing is becoming the most philosophical that Winnie the Pooh has a tendency to interrupt and bring things quickly back to simplicity and accessibility.  And despite this avoidance of overt philisophicality, Hoff still successfully communicates his thoughts—indeed, because of it."
And I don't want to hear anything about beginning a sentence with "and".  When used sparingly it is rhetorically effective.

[Annie Subjunctive]

I think it's fine. It's not like a paper you're submitting to be published in a journal.

One time I wrote an art history entirely spelled and punctuated the British way just to see what my professor would do. He marked every single one wrong.

[pooka]

I'd say philosophicalness implies a property of a being who is philosophical, whereas philosophicality implies the quality of that being being philosophical.  So I would say that is the way to go in this instance.

[Brinestone]

I think it sounds excellent.

[sweet clementine]

oh, bless your hearts....

[Porter]

And I don't want to hear anything about beginning a sentence with "and".

But you can't start a sentence with a conjunction!

(Seriously -- I've got no problems with starting sentences with conjunction or ending them with prepositions.)

[dkw]

I've got no problems with making up new words, or using existing words in new ways.  Verbing can awesome language, as it were.  But it's still not a good idea to use made up words in formal writing, such as academic papers.

Part of the pain-in-the-assedness of reading academic German is that this rule is reversed.  It is apparently considered the height of academic coolness to adjectivify words (or even entire phrases), make up new compound words, and otherwise play language games in German formal writing.  

[Porter]

That would be a pain in the buttedness.

[Tante Shvester]

Gesäßschmerzkeit.

[Jonathon]

[size=8]Even though äß is not a real German word as far as I can tell.[/size]

[Tante Shvester]

"Gesäß" is "buttocks".  That part I had to look up.  The rest I made up, German-style.

[Jonathon]

Well, then, I take it back. The closest I could find was Arsch, which is German for "arse".