Language desk
< January 2	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 3

Adjectives ending in -ic

Usually, an adjective becomes an adverb by adding one new syllable, -ly. But why do -ic adjectives need 2 new syllables (-ally) to become adverbs?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because the adjective from which the adverb descends ends in -ical, not -ic? See [1]. Bazza (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's wrong. take "basic" as an example. That's an adjective. There is no such form as "basical" - and the adverb is "basically." That does appear to be the pattern for other adjectives end with -ic. I don't know why - but I know of no English words which end -icly (though there are plenty ending -ickly). Wymspen (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publicly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's often hypercorrected to "publically". A perfectally understandable move, since the -icly form may well be the single exception to the general rule. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I had forgotten this earlier extended discussion which yours truly started off, and is well worth a read. Apparently the words 'politicly' and 'catholicly' do exist, but they're obsolete or not in general use. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also: monotonic, specific... --CiaPan (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this is a form of hypercorrection which has become standardized. Noun forms that end in "-ic" often take "-al" to become adjectives. Like magic --> magical --> magically. The thing is, it's only a spelling convention, I know of many English dialects that would not pronounce the "-al-" bit in words like "basically" or "tragically" or "practically". Sometimes, also, weird things get preserved or carried on in language, such as a smock you tie around the nape of your neck being "a napron", and getting changed to "an apron". But that's a whole nother thing. Orthography is less connected to language than many assume; written language follows from speech, it does not determine it, and sometimes there is a disconnect between writing and speech, often because of linguistic changes. Written language is far more conservative than spoken language. English especially so, as much of our writing conventions were established during the middle English or early modern English period, sometimes before even the Great Vowel Shift, which is why English orthography is so tricky. --Jayron 32 16:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be relevant that -ic usually behaves like a bisyllabic suffix with regard to stress: compare phot'ography with photo'graphic. I've certainly seen it suggested that this is because it has an "underlying form" of -ical, though I don't know how you would go about proving or disproving that. --ColinFine (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about verb tense: past tense or past perfect tense?

When I read my daily weather reports, it states: "In the past 30 years, it rained 18 out of 30 times on this day." So, they are basically saying that they are looking back at the weather records for the specific date of January 3; they are looking at the data for the last 30 years (for the specific date of January 3). Thus, 18 of the 30 days had rain; 12 of the days did not. When I read that original sentence, it seems to me like it should read: "In the past 30 years, it has rained 18 out of 30 times on this day." Am I correct or incorrect? Or, do the two sentences (theirs and mine) have two (nuanced) different meanings? I can never quite understand the difference between past and past perfect verb tense. Can someone offer a quick and easy way to remember it? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "has" is pretty much optional here. There is no difference in meaning. I have a slight preference for including the "has", since we are talking about a condition that still exists in the present. But it really doesn't matter either way. --Viennese Waltz 15:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Why do you say that "we are talking about a condition that still exists in the present"? Aren't they examining 30 specific dates that all occurred in the past (i.e., January 3 of 2018 ... January 3 of 2017 ... all the way down to ... January 3 of 1989)? All of those events occurred in the past. No? In other words, they are not looking at (the current date of) January 3 of 2019. Right? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "to have" as an auxiliary verb usually indicates a perfect aspect. The distinction in the case can be exemplified by the difference in meaning between "I ran." and "I had ran." The perfect tense almost always implies an action that started at some point further in the past than the the tense of the actual verb. There is usually an implied "...before..." clause in any perfect verb. Thus, "I ran" just means "At some point, running took place" whereas "I had ran" almost begs a following clause like "I had ran before I took a break" or something. The use of the perfect can be useful when the "before..." bit is implied by context, or established at an earlier point, or is about to be established, but it adds little meaning by itself when there is no context to establish what it is "before". If the "before" is simply "before now", then the simple past is usually sufficient. Simply put, if you're trying to establish the relationship between two events, especially if the event is continuous, use the perfect (has ____ed). If the relationship is between the past and the now, especially where the events are discrete or completed, use the simple past (just ____ed). Using "has" is not wrong, but it's not necessary. In the case above, I would use "It rained 18 out of 30 times on this day" but "It has rained for the last 18 days". --Jayron 32 16:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Thanks. That's a very helpful explanation. I think I "get it" now. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's "I had run", not "I had ran". [2]. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. Leave it to me to pick a verb with a weird past participle. Apparently the past participle of run is "run". If you change all the runs to walk (and thus to "had walked") it works better. --Jayron 32 15:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the present tense that's irregular here. It should be rin. I'm about 90% joking, I guess, but then again it wouldn't completely shock me if someone popped up and said that it used to be "rin" but it changed in the Third Epipelagic Lexeme Shift or something. --Trovatore (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

No jokeing necessary: OE rinnan, OE rynnan (rare), ME rayne, ME rine, ME ringand (northern, present participle), ME ryne, ME rynn, ME–15 rinne, ME–15 rynne, ME–16 rin, ME–16 ryn, lME ryme (transmission error); Eng. regional 18– rin, 18– ryn, 19– rinn; Sc. pre-17 rine, pre-17 rinne, pre-17 ryn, pre-17 ryne, pre-17 ryngande (present participle), pre-17 rynn, pre-17 rynne, pre-17 17– rin, pre-17 18 rinn; Irish English 18 rhin (Wexford), 19– rin. Dbfirs 21:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph, this English Tenses Timeline Reference may help. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases, the use or not of the perfect is a free choice, depending on how the speaker is choosing to present the temporal relationships: it rarely corresponds to an objective difference. Here, if the speaker used has rained, it would be presenting the period of thirty years as including the present, and perhaps subtly suggesting that the dataset will continue to be added to in subsequent years. If they don't use the perfect, they are not presenting it in that way: not ruling it out, but not offering the connection with the present. --ColinFine (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's arguably slightly ambiguous whether the sentence is talking about (taking today as an example) the 30 January 3rds from 1989 to 2018, or from 1990 to 2019. It's conceivable that some imaginable person might, not entirely without justification, use the simple past if talking about the former, or the present perfect if talking about the latter. But it's hardly a reliable indicator. --Trovatore (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Very helpful! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]