Re: -ist vs. -istic
James Hogg
Heinrich Arning) wrote:
>Are there any differences in use and meaning between related attributes
>ending with "-ist" and "-istic"?
>
>Are they totaly or just partly synonymous? Are they interchangeble? Are
>there any contexts which allow just one of both?
>
>Do British and American speakers distinguish them differently?
>
>So, if there are some differences, what are they?
>
>Examples:
>
>"idealist opinion/view" vs. "idealitic opinion/view"
>"individualist behavio(u)r" vs. "individualistic behavio(u)r"
>"optimist attitude" vs. "optimistic attitude"
>"polytheist traditions" vs. "polytheistic traditions"
>"socialist society/party" vs. "socialistic society/party"
Here are some guidelines:
If you want to use a noun, it will be the word ending in -ist:
"I'm an optimist."
Words ending in -istic are adjectives.
"Some people are more optimistic than others."
The complication is that some words in -ist are also used as
adjectives. For me a "socialist/capitalist society" sounds more
natural than a "socialistic/capitalistic society". Of your other
four examples, I would prefer the adjective to end in -istic:
"idealistic opinion/view"
"individualistic behavio(u)r"
"optimistic attitude"
"polytheistic traditions"
--
James
(BrE with a distinctly septentrional flavour)
Mark Brader
> Are there any differences in use and meaning between related attributes
> ending with "-ist" and "-istic"?
> "individualist behavio(u)r" vs. "individualistic behavio(u)r"
> "optimist attitude" vs. "optimistic attitude"
> "polytheist traditions" vs. "polytheistic traditions"
In each of these cases the "-ist" word is a noun and the "-istic" word
an adjective. An expression like "an idealist view" is using the noun
attributively and may be read as meaning "the view of an idealist".
(The practical meaning is very close to that of "an idealistic view".)
Some of the "-ist" expressions that you list are ones where this
construction is unlikely, and my first reaction was to call them wrong.
> "socialist society/party" vs. "socialistic society/party"
Here, however, "-ist" is correct; it's both the noun and the adjective.
"Socialistic" is more unusual; I would take it to mean that the group
largely follows socialist principles but either does not completely do
so or else, perhaps, rejects the term "socialist".
In short, I don't think there is any rule; you have to learn the words
individually if you want to use the right ending. It's like the formation
of adjectives with -ic or -ical; you just have to know.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | Polly-ticks: Bloodsucking parasites that squawk
m...@vex.net | mindless slogans in place of thought. --Chris Vernell
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Mike Lyle
Interesting question. I agree broadly with James (British-type English),
but would qualify by mentioning that in some cases the "-istic" form may
suggest a less complete or less formal version of the thing. A
"socialistic government", for example, isn't a thoroughly socialist one;
and I feel an "idealist opinion" would be an opinion held as a result of
the philosophy known as "idealist", with an "idealistic opinion" being
merely, well, um, idealistic.
Many of these words, e.g. "optimist" and "egoist" are never, in my
experience, used as adjectives in English.
--
Mike.
dearcilla
> Are there any differences in use and meaning between related attributes
> ending with "-ist" and "-istic"?
Relativist versus relativistic mean quite different things. Probably.
Steve Hayes
>Here are some guidelines:
>
>If you want to use a noun, it will be the word ending in -ist:
>"I'm an optimist."
>
>Words ending in -istic are adjectives.
>"Some people are more optimistic than others."
>
>The complication is that some words in -ist are also used as
>adjectives. For me a "socialist/capitalist society" sounds more
>natural than a "socialistic/capitalistic society". Of your other
>four examples, I would prefer the adjective to end in -istic:
>
>"idealistic opinion/view"
>"individualistic behavio(u)r"
>"optimistic attitude"
>"polytheistic traditions"
It can also have complicate ideological overtones.
B.J. Vorster, a former South African prime minister, consucted a crusade
against the Liberal Party, which opposed his governments policies.
But in his speeches he never referred to liberals, but only to liberalists.
Similarly, he never referred to liberal policies, views or opinions, but only
"liberalistic" ones.
I'm not quite sure what the ideological point was, exactly, but I think he
thought that making the word longer made it sound worse.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
James Hogg
Heinrich Arning) wrote:
>James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Here are some guidelines:
>>
>> If you want to use a noun, it will be the word ending in -ist:
>> "I'm an optimist."
>>
>> Words ending in -istic are adjectives.
>> "Some people are more optimistic than others."
>>
>> The complication is that some words in -ist are also used as
>> adjectives.
>
>The question in terms of grammar is: are theese words really adjectives
>or are they nouns in attributive position?
If you can compare them, they must be adjectives, mustn't they?
He is more socialist than you. She is the most socialist of all.
You can't do that with, say, optimist.
>Semantically it's confusing since you find both the -ist and the -istic
>versions. So, how to figure out the better use in a specific context?
There's no general rule. Study how each word is used by native
speakers.
>> For me a "socialist/capitalist society" sounds more
>> natural than a "socialistic/capitalistic society". Of your other
>> four examples, I would prefer the adjective to end in -istic:
>>
>> "idealistic opinion/view"
>> "individualistic behavio(u)r"
>> "optimistic attitude"
>> "polytheistic traditions"
>
>Does it depend on the following substantive?
Possibly.
>What do you prefer:
>
>"individualist theorist" or "individualistic theorist"
individualistic theorist
>"socialist attitude" or "socialistic attitude"?
socialist attitude
>Or, is both possible, but with a different meaning.
Other people may have different preferences from mine, and may
use both forms but with different shades of meaning.
--
James
Christian Weisgerber
> > Words ending in -istic are adjectives.
> > "Some people are more optimistic than others."
> >
> > The complication is that some words in -ist are also used as
> > adjectives.
>
> The question in terms of grammar is: are theese words really adjectives
> or are they nouns in attributive position?
I suppose if you can form a comparative or superlative, it's an
adjective.
Googling a bit, I see that "more optimistic" beats out "more optimist"
by a vast margin, but "more socialist" doesn't appear to be any
less popular than "more socialistic".
Another test for an adjective is whether you can modify it with an
adverb.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Mark Brader
>> > "socialist society/party" vs. "socialistic society/party"
Mark Brader:
>> Here, however, "-ist" is correct; it's both the noun and the adjective.
Ralf Arning:
> Well, the OED writes the same, but it's curious. Why don't you consider
> "socialist", when used as an attribute, as a noun, as you do with the
> other words?
Because it exists as an adjective, in the right sense.
> To me as a German, the attributive use of nouns is a typical feature
> of English. The case of "socialist" would fit perfectly.
If it was "the socialist view", I would say it was a noun.
>> "Socialistic" is more unusual; I would take it to mean that the group
>> largely follows socialist principles but either does not completely do
>> so or else, perhaps, rejects the term "socialist".
>
> In other words: Somebody, some group, or some behavior may be considered
> as "socialistic" by others, even if the person or group does not
> consider himself/itselve as socialist. Have I got the point?
Yes, that's what I meant. (You mean "itself", by the way.)
>> In short, I don't think there is any rule; you have to learn the words
>> individually if you want to use the right ending. It's like the formation
>> of adjectives with -ic or -ical; you just have to know.
>
> The problem is: how to get to know?
I don't know how!
--
Mark Brader | "Simple things should be simple." -- Alan Kay, on UIs
m...@vex.net | "Too many ... try to make complex things simple ...
Toronto | and succeed ... only in making simple things complex."
| -- Jeff Prothero
Christian Weisgerber
> > > The question in terms of grammar is: are theese words really adjectives
> > > or are they nouns in attributive position?
> >
> > I suppose if you can form a comparative or superlative, it's an
> > adjective.
>
> Basicly you are right. But it works only with short words.
> "More" doesn't indicate the following word as an adjective. The
> adjective is "more" itself, see for example phrases like "more
> businessman than".
But in expressions of the form "more <noun> than <noun>", the noun
isn't in an attributive position. That's a different construction.
Back to the attributes:
... a more socialist country ...
... a more optimistic country ...
*... a more businessman attitude ...
... a more businessman-like attitude ...