Holes in Linguistic Paradigms

By -
wb 110209 Wed 1140

Whence the various holes in linguistic paradigms? Why just these holes? Random genesis? Linguistic drift? Other historical process? Something else?

I II III IV V VI
*anagraphy *anagraphic *anagraph anagram 0001 1
*graphy graphic graph *gram 0110 2
*phonography phonographic phonograph *phonogram 0110 2
biography biographic *biograph *biogram 1100 2
geography geographic *geograph *geogram 1100 2
cartography cartographic *cartograph *cartogram 1100 2
demography demographic *demograph *demogram 1100 2
pornography pornographic *pornograph *pornogram 1100 2
*monography ?monographic monograph monogram 0?11 2.5
?polygraphy polygraphic polygraph *polygram ?110 2.5
caligraphy caligraphic ?caligraph *caligram 11?0 2.5
mammography mammographic *mammograph mammogram 1101 3
mimeography mimeographic mimeograph *mimeogram 1110 3
photography photographic photograph *photogram 1110 3
tomography tomographic ?tomograph tomogram 11?1 3.5
serigraphy serigraphic serigraph ?serigram 111? 3.5
spectrography spectrographic spectrograph ?spectrogram 111? 3.5
epigraphy epigraphic epigraph epigram 1111 4
sonography sonographic sonograph sonogram 1111 4
telegraphy telegraphic telegraph telegram 1111 4

The 0/?/* tags are based not on formal lexicography (ha! another 1100, seems to be the commonest type), but on my own somewhat dubious judgements of oral American usage.

The -ic form seems to be the most often present. An exercise for the reader: add the -er form.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more