Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I was thinking about the word "acyclic" meaning not having or containing a cycle. Then I thought of the word "bicycle" and wondered if it made sense to call something that an "acycle". As an example I would want to say that stilts are an acycle (because they do not inherently contain a cycle or cyclic motion).

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Referring to stilts as an "acycle" seems to me a bizarre formation. "Acyclic" is used to distinguish between things that might or should have a cycle but don't. Simply because stilts do not have a "cycle" does not make them acyclic, because stilts do not belong to a class of objects that could conceivably have a cycle. Neither do tree stumps, Frank Frazetta book covers, or fingernail parings, except in the sense that all things have a cycle of creation and destruction.

Acyclic refers to concepts like molecules that contain no rings of atoms, or women who don't have a menstrual cycle [see NOAD definition]. Both of those are commonly thought to have cycles, and so may require a term to describe the absence of what should be a normal property for them.

share|improve this answer

Calling stilts an acycle makes exactly as much sense as calling them a motorless.

share|improve this answer
    
I don't quite understand, stilts don't have motors, thus wouldn't it makes sense to say they are motorless? –  Jordan Feb 27 '11 at 23:47
1  
@Yoel: We aren't talking about saying they are motorless or wheel-less, we are talking about using those as their name. –  chaos Feb 27 '11 at 23:49

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.