In AWAD News 33, someone wrote a post saying that the "-aster" of "philosophaster" was a pejorative suffix, and then claimed that the word "newscaster" made sense. To me, this seems like a bit of morphological confusion, because a newscaster is quite literally "one who casts news," while a philosophaster isn't one who "asts philosophs." And the word doesn't morphologically break into "newsc" and "aster." Am I wrong? To me it's like saying the words "dentist" and "desist" are etymologically related simply by the shared "-ist." I don't see much, if any, relation between the two, but I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary.

the "-aster" of "philosophaster" was a pejorative suffix, and then claimed that the word "newscaster" made sense.

I wouldn't necessarily be looking for too much deep linguistic meaning in an email from someone called Jellybean Stonerfish*.

You'd also have to consider that perhaps a philosophaster was someone who phasted philosoes, much as a poetaster is someone who tastes poes.

*But then, I'm not so sure about taking advice from someone called Faldage, either

I would venture the opinion that mr. jellyfish is a philologaster.[smle]

I guess that would be an empty smile...

I would venture the opinion that mr. jellyfish is a philologaster.

And if jellyfish have feet, he'd be a pederaster.

A philosophaster is a star philosopher.