New answers tagged suffixes
-ment is not a free suffix you can add as you like. The nouns ending in -ment are either Latin or French. And the etymology of -ment is not clear. Even the meaning of -men and -mentum is difficult to analysize. If you study the Latin nouns in -men/mentum you find that the nouns are of various types and it is not possible to give a simple idea of the ...
There is no difference in meaning or usage aside from regional preferences. The first online dictionary I checked simply redirected "anatomic" to "anatomical". If you are curious about specific usage comparisons you can use Google's NGram viewer: anatomic versus anatomical anatomic context versus anatomical context common words following anatomic common ...
"-wise" is another, as in clockwise, counterclockwise (or anticlockwise) and the less-common edgewise, lengthwise, leftwise, and rightwise. Wiktionary has a long list under "Derived terms."
What an interesting phenomenon, thanks for asking the question. In trying to find similar instances, it occurred* to me that there's a relationship between the prefixes of the 5 W's; although not locative or directional, their is a narrative relationship: 'who, what, where, when, why'. I originally thought of this in Spanish: who = quien, what = que, when ...
its generally female because of its etymology: From the French -ette, the feminine form of the diminutive suffix -et.
"-wards" can be locative suffixes that turn a noun into an adverb: viz. homewards, onwards, upwards, downwards, inwards.
The adjectives in -ic or -ical are a sector without any system. You find all sorts of types: 1 Both forms are possible without any difference. 2 Both forms are possible with a difference - historical, historic. 3 Only one form is possible - logical, not: logic.
As per the FreeDictionary, Actually, suffices al and ic have very similar meaning: Of, relating to, or characterized by When we have a root phys or physio, we get derived words like physic (which led to physics) and physical. Similarly, we have another root eco, we get economic and economical. Logically, they are same because ic and al are ...
It means one cannot concentrate on work without have coffee.
It may be a take-off on an expression that had been used to sound like someone at a Chinese laundry..."no tickee, no washee!", which meant that without a ticket, you could not pick up your laundry. So "no coffee, no workee" means that without the coffee, you'll get no work. This original expression that mimics Chinese Pidgin English, spoken by early ...
It's a play on words. Coffee is usually pronounced 'coffy' but here, to emphasis the play, both words would have the 'ee' ending as in 'feet'. Used by those who cannot function without their coffee, it means: Give me a cup of coffee or I'm not going to work for you Or, more politely I'm just going to make myself a cup of coffee and then I'll be ...
"-ie" or "-y" is sometimes used as a suffix to denote childish speech. In this case the same sound has been written as "-ee" in order to match the ending of "coffee". So it just means "Without coffee I can't work." But expressed in a childish way to imply reduced ability to think due to lack of caffeine.
It is a Chris Farleyian way to say "I cannot work (function) without coffee." I would pronounce it using this voice.
Timmy had a miserable child and adult hood. This sentence doesn't parse well because there the reader is unlikely to notice that "hood" is intended to change "child" and "adult" into "childhood" and "adulthood". At the very least, I would recommend using a hyphen: Timmy had a miserable child- and adulthood. (?) Timmy had a miserable child- and ...
The suffix is actually -er. Words ending in T often double the T in this case. The meaning is "one who does" so a fitter is one who fits (things), etc. Twit, emit, chat, and fit are the root words; flutter I'm not so sure about...
You might be right that the element of wordformation -hood as in childhood was in earliest time a word of its own as suffixes don't fall from the sky. But no one can tell for sure was that word was. Etymonline presents a theory of a word meaning "shining". Not very convincing and the semantic connection is not plausible. I would guess -hood is connected ...
It's one of a pair of words of French origin: masseur, for a male; masseuse for a female. Other examples are: chanteur, chanteuse for a singer; entrepreneur, entrepreneuse, for someone engaged in commercial enterprises (though the -euse form isn't in common usage with that example). The problem is, those are gender-specific, which might explain the recent ...
I already heard the term "massagist" to refer to a masseur or masseuse. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Massagist E.g. ...of a massagist (masseur or masseuse) as herein defined... source No person licensed as a masseur, masseuse, or massagist, shall massage or treat. source It shall be a violation of this section for any person that doesn't hold a ...
A masseuse is a female person who gives massages (the male is masseur). The origin of the term is French. Massage therapist usually implies that the person has undergone some special training in the use of massage to alleviate medical conditions. They are typically licensed or certified in some manner. A massager is a device that massages. If you google ...
Well, the magic of grep has produced two files, one file of -ish words and one file of -like words Feel free to figure out the rules that they follow. And to find counterexamples to others' rules.
In terms of etymology, -ish is a diminutive. It often carries a negative context: childish, churlish, clownish, cliquish, selfish, foolish, boyish, girlish, sheepish. Compare with: adultish, heroish, geniusish ... these don't work. Adult-like, hero-like, genius-like: these sound more correct. Compare directly childish and child-like. The former has a ...
Top 50 recent answers are included