who (what) are you quoting from?

who is Roger Woodham?

(is it a source you've quoted before--(and i just missed the clue?) or an other source?
(is it included in the links that can be referenced by Max's page of language links or is it one that should be added?)

Sorry, Of Troy. I forgot to add the link. It's from a BBC World Service website "Learning English".

http://snipurl.com/c30x

Roger Woodham is described as follows:

"Roger Woodham, an experienced teacher of English, answers questions about grammar, vocabulary and learning strategies. Part of the useful BBC World Service 'Learning English' site."

Then there was the friend of mine who described himself as a Trotskyist. When asked what the difference was between a Trotskyist and a Trotskyite he said that it was the same as the difference between a socialist and a socialite.

Welcome back xoxo

As is my wont, I have nothing to add to the topc. I did want to say, cara, dear, that you don't seem like a stranger at all! Welcome.

Allo Cara ma choupette - nice to see you here.

A Luddite is a person who is like Ned Ludd.
A Leninist is a person who follows the teaching of Lenin, which is different.

A Barzunite is a person who is like Jacques Barzun.
A Calvinist is a person who follows the teaching of John Calvin, which is different.

A Sadist is a person who is like the Marquis de Sade.
A Benedictine is a person who follows the teaching of St Benedict of Nursia, which is different.

These seem less than iron-clad distinctions, but I suspect that there truly is a worthwhile distinction lurking in here somewhere.

maybe so; but not one that you could render in *Newtonian symbology.

to wit: Leninist :: Cavinist !: Sadist
(per your formulations)

Hey, Cara, I pop in and see the tone of the neighbourhood just took a fatal plunge! How's sunny California?

I suspect that there truly is a worthwhile distinction lurking in here somewhere.

Good analysis, Father Steve.

It could be that the language inclines to the "ist" ending when describing a follower of a historical figure like Marx or Lenin or Calvin who urged profound changes in the organization of society or religion, whilst inclining towards the "ian" ending to describe those who "accept" intellectually, but do not "follow" [implying commitment or devotion], the world-view or the hypothesis of a pioneering scientist, like Newton [Newtonian], or Freud [Freudian], or a pioneering thinker or philosopher, like Aristotle [Aristotelean].

Of course, this doesn't explain why a follower of Christ is a "Christian" rather than a "Christist".* [Please see "Footnote" - separate post.]

The awkwardness of the "Christist" alternative may be revealing. It may be that exceptions from the 'rule' occur only when needed to soften or facilitate pronunciation.

Further, it may be that the "ite" ending is preferred over "ian" for prominent creatives, like Barzune, whose literary or artistic insights do not shake the foundations of science or society, but merely lead the way in establishing new perspectives or styles or fashions or trends.

Interesting that Marx gives us both "Marxian" and "Markist" indicating that his world-view was sufficiently epochal to be studied or 'followed' or both.

There is some obscure use of the word "Christist", as evidenced in this essay:

Active Pythagorean schools were in existence until the sixth century. The last, in Alexandria, was suppressed by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian in the course of a Christist pogrom against philosophy and paganism. The refugees fled East to Persia, where Zoroastrianism continued to flourish until its suppression by Islam between the 8th and 10th centuries.

There is little doubt that from those times forward, science, mathematics and philosophy were dangerous fringe occupations throughout the Christist Empire. It can be argued that Christist intolerance was responsible for a hiatus of nearly 1000 years in the development of human knowledge, aided and abetted by Pythagorean secrecy. For example, it is now generally accepted that the earth is spherical, and that it orbits the sun along with the other planets. It seems certain that the Pythagoreans understood this, both Copernicus and Kepler acknowledge it in their writings, but the development of calculus, as a means of modelling the mechanics of the solar system, had to wait until the 17th century.

Christist intellectual fascism was the main reason for the delay, in my view. Copernicus strikes a distinctly paranoid tone in the introduction to his major work 'De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium' (1543), and there is an element of Russian Roulette in the careers of many serious philosophers of that period. Followers of Copernicus, like Galileo, were subjected to the inquisition, and Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in Rome by Papal order of Clement VIII in 1600, with his tongue in a gag. Newton was fortunate to be working in the more open minded climate of Cambridge.

http://snipurl.com/g5j5

Note: I take issue with the author's use of "followers" in this sentence:

"Followers of Copernicus, like Galileo"

Those who were persuaded by the scientific discoveries or hypotheses of Copernicus and Galileo were not "followers" of these scientists, any more than those who accepted the scientific authority of Newton were "followers" of Newton.

My criticism of this use of the word "followers" is consistent, I suggest, with the fact that Copernicus gave us the word "Copernican", not "Copernicist".

Galileo, who recanted the scientific implications of his astronomical observations, gave us neither "Galileoian" nor "Galileoist".

"Sadist" was mentioned earlier. Why we have "sadist" rather than "sadean" is somewhat more difficult to explain than most other "ist" endings, perhaps.

A "sadist" is "a person who is like the Marquis de Sade", as Father Steve has said, but a "sadist" may not know anything about the Marquis de Sade and his infamous practices. In this, "sadist" seems to be an eponymic anomaly. What Marxist would not know about Marx? What Calvinist would be ignorant of Calvin?

But, having said that, a "sadist" is one whose defining characteristic is not an intellectual interest in, or passive acceptance of, human perversity, such as one might find in a psychoanalyst [befitting an "ian" or "an" ending], but the active expression of that interest in acts of cruelty.

On this basis, "sadist", not "sadean", is the proper word to describe someone who is "like the Marquis de Sade".

Sadean does exist for one who accepts the Marquis' philosophical and literary ideas rather than the sexual practices associated with his name.

Perhaps Christian is anomalous (if indeed it is) because we took it over ready-formed from the Greek Christianos rather than adding the suffix ourselves.

Bingley

Sadean does exist ... Christianos

Thanks for that valuable input, Bingley.

I confess I didn't know the Marquis de Sade had any "philosophical and literary ideas", at least, any worth reading. Oftimes we confuse character with erudition or creativity, but, of course, there is no necessary correspondence.

As a matter of fact, there is compelling evidence that a benign form of manic-depression [mania without the depression] may account for the entrepreneurial spirit and economic prowess of the United States, a country which was built by daring and adventurous immigrants from other countries. There is a newly published book on this subject. I will look for it and report back.

BTW your report on the origin of "Christian" does resolve what appears to me [at least] to be a conspicuous exception to the implicit, not explicit, general 'rule' guiding "ist" endings [that is, eponymic "ist" endings].

Thanks again.

I've just found the book, Bingley, written by John D. Gartner who teaches psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins Medical School.

Here is an extract from something he wrote which is "adapted from his new book The Hypomanic Edge".

"Hypomania—often found in the relatives of manic depressives—is a mild form of the psychiatric disorder known as mania. Hypomanics are brimming with infectious energy, irrational confidence, and really big ideas. They think, talk, move, and make decisions quickly. Anyone who slows them down with questions “just doesn’t get it.” Hypomanics are not mental cases, but “normal” is not the first word that comes to mind when describing them. Hypomanics live on the edge, between normal and abnormal.
------------------
"There will be gold rushes, booms, and manias aplenty in our future. America has been a ship riding the waves of irrational exuberance for hundreds of years, and she’s not likely to change course any time soon.

It’s in our blood."

America’s Manic Entrepreneurs
By John Gartner

http://snipurl.com/g877

I must admit I haven't read any of the Marquis de Sade's writings either, but one can see that it might be worth making a distinction between Sadean use of the French language and Sadist use of the French language.

I wonder if there exists a similar distinction between Masochan use of the German language and Masochist use of the German language?

Bingley