« previous post | next post »
The linguistic point that is so interesting about the PartiallyClips cartoon strip that Mark just pointed you to is that the "suffixes" involved are not all suffixes. The endings of the words are -like, -esque, -ward, -proof, -(a)thon, -riffic, -master, -go-round, -ism, -kabob, -(o)phile, -(i)licious, and -gasm. Of these, I think I'd say (it is a theoretical judgment) that only -like, -esque, -ward, and -ism should be called suffixes.
I think words ending in -proof, -master, and -kabob are best treated as compounds (formed of two roots, like treehouse, where tree isn't a prefix and house isn't a suffix). The element spelled -phile or -ophile is a Greek-derived combining form (neither a suffix nor a word, but a separate word-formation element nonetheless). And the rest, most interestingly, represent cases of what Arnold Zwicky and I have called playful or expressive word formation. The endings aren't really separate elements at all in the word formation system; they are salient pieces of words reattached where they don't belong in a way that represents monkeying with the language system and having fun with it, not simply employing it. English has a suffix of the form -ism, certainly; but (Reginald in the strip is wrong) it doesn't have a suffix of the form -gasm. At least, not yet (serious morphology from little jokes can grow). We discuss the distinction between plain and expressive derivational morphology, and lay out a few of its characteristics, in the paper that you can find here (PDF copy of a paper published in the proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society in 1987). We have taken some flak from people who think we are making an invidious and untenable distinction between "proper" language and mere messing about; but we have given our reasons, and criteria, and we haven't changed our mind.