|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Sorry, Of Troy. I forgot to add the link. It's from a BBC World Service website "Learning English". http://snipurl.com/c30xRoger 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."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230 |
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. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891 |
Allo Cara ma choupette - nice to see you here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
maybe so; but not one that you could render in *Newtonian symbology.
to wit: Leninist :: Cavinist !: Sadist
(per your formulations)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
Hey, Cara, I pop in and see the tone of the neighbourhood just took a fatal plunge! How's sunny California?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
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/g5j5Note: 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".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
"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".
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,372
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
381
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
