5 Words That End in the Excrescent “-st”

IMG: www.thebostonschool.com

 

Somewhere along the way, a very small group of English words, through dialectical divergence, acquired spelling and punctuation variants in the form of an odd appendage: the letters -st. Three of these terms are acceptable (but declining in use) in British English but deemed nonstandard in American English, while two others, strangely, have prevailed over earlier forms.

The phonological term for this type of change is excrescence, which although it simply means “outgrowth” is a word with unpleasant associations that should help writers (and speakers) of American English to remember to think twice before using one of the following three words:

1. Amidst: The preposition amid, meaning “among” or “during,” or “with the accompaniment of,” is often written (but rarely said as) amidst, even in American English, but it is considered colloquial and unsuitable for formal writing.

2. Amongst: The excrescent form of the preposition among, in some senses synonymous with amid(st), is perhaps even more frequently employed in informal American English writing (and speaking). However, amongst, like amidst, should be avoided in formal writing.

3. Whilst: Alone among these three words, the conjunction whilst is rarely used in American English, perhaps because it sounds especially affected; many users of British English also favor while. Its relative unpopularity, however, is counterintuitive in that it is relatively easy to pronounce, while amidst and amongst involve some mandibular gymnastics.

Though they have the same ending as amidst, amongst, and whilst, these words ending in the excrescent -st are standard:

4. Against: Anomalously, though against followed a path similar to those of the three words listed above, forming from the alteration of again to againes and then to againest before settling into its current form, the nonstandard variant prevailed. Again, as a preposition, has been relegated to dialect used for comic effect; indeed, in this context, it is often spelled agin to emphasize the drawled pronunciation, as in “I ain’t sayin’ nothin’ agin ya” (translation: “I’m not saying anything against you”).

5. Midst: This variant of the noun middle (from the Middle English term middest, an alteration of middes, which in turn is short for amiddes, meaning “amid”) is correct, though its survival is curious, considering that middle is easier to pronounce. The truncated form mid is acceptable only as a prefix in a hyphenated (mid-Atlantic) or closed (midafternoon) compound.

Why One Suffix Is More Common Than Another

Image from www.jimloy.com

What is the rationale, if any, for the predominance of one suffix over one that performs the same function? Last week, I discussed the question of choosing between the suffixes -logic and -logical. Here, I take a look at other suffixes that compete with each other when various parts of speech are converted to others.

The suffix -ize is adopted for most multisyllabic words; by contrast, -ify is rarely applied to words of more than one syllable. The rationale given for this rule, that one choice or the other simply feels right, bears out: Even if I didn’t know the adjectival form of apology, I would more likely say apologize than apologify; the same goes for minimize over minimify, revolutionize over revolutionify, and just about any other applicable word I can think of. (Electrify, rather than electricize, is one exception.)

Often, more than one correct adjective exists for a given word, but one form seems more formal than the other. For example, both accountability and accountableness are acceptable (another example is the duo profanity/profaneness), but although -ness is more common, -ity is considered more proper.

Certain suffixes go in and out of style. For example, -th long ago fell out of favor as an option for converting an adjective to a noun, and -ment has essentially been retired as a go-to suffix for new words. The same is true of -ar as a suffix indicating transformation from a verb to a noun; though -ar is common among existing words, -er is not only much more common but is also the default suffix for new coinages.

When a word has more than one possible suffix, the alternatives may develop different connotations. For example, profaneness refers, among other senses, to irreverent or unholy things, while profanity has come to denote the quality or state of being profane, or the speaking or writing of profane language, or such language itself. Another example is the development of cynical when cynic became a noun as well as an adjective.

Some suffixes develop distinct qualities. For example, -ive, based on Latin words ending in -vus but extended to non-Latinate words as well, implies a permanent state, as exemplified by the difference in nuance between attracting and attractive.

Because of the variety of likely suffixes, it’s best to consult the dictionary or an authoritative resource if you’re uncertain about the proper appendage for a particular word.

Suffixes That Denote Relation or Resemblance

Image from thethirdgradescoop.blogspot.com

 

When we refer to something suggestive of William Shakespeare’s works, why do we write Shakespearean (or, seldom, Shakespearian) rather than Shakespearesque? Why is an epic tale labeled Homeric rather than Homerian? What’s the difference between Christian and Christ-like? Is there a method to the madness of these suffixes?

The transformation of surnames into adjectives is fairly random, and writers are strongly advised to consult a dictionary or to research online usage rather than rely on common sense. When such a suffix has not yet been bestowed on a name, audition the four forms (-ean, -esque, -ian, and -ic) and select the most euphonious among them, but only after considering whether it’s wise to use any of the options at all, rather than to simply state that something is reminiscent of the works or beliefs of a particular person.

It takes a significant achievement or, more likely, set of achievements to merit this form, and your attempt to honor someone may be interpreted as irony. The good news, however, is that attaching one of these suffixes to a person’s name is, in a satirical context, an effective form of mockery or parody. (Consider, for example, a reference to a vocalist’s Bieberesque stylings. But beware of clumsy constructions like Kardashianian.)

In sincere usage, reserve -esque for the most deserving recipient names, as with Lincolnesque. The suffixes -ean and -ian — the former form dominates, though the choice often seems arbitrary — is suitable for most other references (Sartrean, Freudian). The -ic option is most suitable for classical (Platonic) or historical (Napoleonic) references.

And note the conversion of names ending in vowel sounds: Themes suggestive of George Bernard Shaw’s philosophy or the tone of his work, for example, are called Shavian, and a worldview akin to that of Henry David Thoreau is Thoreauvian.

The seemingly most sensible alternative — to simply append -like to a name — is rarely employed; the only widespread example that comes to mind is in the distinction between reference to Christian theology or values and to Christ-like behavior or appearance. (The suffix -like is usually attached to a root word without hyphenation, but an exception is made for proper nouns.)

The Logic Behind “-logic” and “-logical”

Image source: http://mrsrhodesscholars.blogspot.com/

Why does the English language allow one to select between, say, biologic and biological, neurologic and neurological, and technologic and technological? Why complicate our language lives with the choice? Is the universe malicious?

According to one study, the suffix -ic is preferred over the variant -ical by a ratio of 8 to 1. Curiously, however, when -log precedes the suffix, the ratio is reversed. (In another example of this phenomenon, called potentiation, -ness is much more common than -ity – except when the suffix is preceded by -able.) But that doesn’t answer my questions.

For the most part, the choice seems to be personal or institutional preference, because there’s usually no distinction — no logic, for example, to selection of -logic or -logical. For example, the style guide of the American Academy of Neurology prefers the shorter form, but in other contexts, neurological prevails.

One researcher points out that, as you might have guessed, -ic (from the Greek suffix -ikos) was the original suffix; -ical, formed by adding the French suffix -al, came later. For the most part, usage organically caused a divergence, so that, for example, a historic occasion is memorable, whereas a historical occasion is one that merely occurred.

For another example, economic refers to economics, while economical is used more generally to refer to the quality of economy. In this case, as with some others, the former can mean the same thing as the latter but seldom does. Comic and comical, and geometric and geometrical, are two of the many other sister terms with both (occasionally) identical and (usually) distinctly different meanings.

Sometimes, one form predominates for obvious reasons (fanatical, for example, developed in favor of fanatic because the original form came to be applied as a noun), but in other cases, the variation — for reasons seldom clear — triumphs (botanical versus botanic, for example.)

So, which form should you use in a given context? The dictionary is helpful for most -ic/-ical debates, but the -logic/-logical (and -logous!) issue is an outlier. In such cases, consult an authoritative source.