Discussion:
Why is a suffix of appurtenance called so?
Add Reply
Dingbat
2017-05-18 04:48:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Why is a suffix of appurtenance called so?

According to an example of the so-called suffix of appurtenance, the terminal
'i' in Israeli and Bengali is a 'suffix of appurtenance'. The 'a' word, to
my eye, makes the Israeli look like an appendage of Israel.

What would be wrong with the alternative of describing Israeli as the genitive
of Israel?
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-18 08:10:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Why is a suffix of appurtenance called so?
According to an example of the so-called suffix of appurtenance, the terminal
'i' in Israeli and Bengali is a 'suffix of appurtenance'. The 'a' word, to
my eye, makes the Israeli look like an appendage of Israel.
What would be wrong with the alternative of describing Israeli as the genitive
of Israel?
"Israel" and "Bengal" are not Latin nouns of the second declension, so
why would you want to inflect them as if they were?
--
athel
Dingbat
2017-05-18 09:41:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Dingbat
Why is a suffix of appurtenance called so?
According to an example of the so-called suffix of appurtenance, the terminal
'i' in Israeli and Bengali is a 'suffix of appurtenance'. The 'a' word, to
my eye, makes the Israeli look like an appendage of Israel.
What would be wrong with the alternative of describing Israeli as the genitive
of Israel?
"Israel" and "Bengal" are not Latin nouns of the second declension, so
why would you want to inflect them as if they were?
I don't know about the case of Israeli but in the case of Bengali, you borrow
it after the 'i' has already been added, in a language that's not English.
So, it's not English that's adding the suffix.

Now, since 'cuisine of Bengal' and 'Bengali cuisine' are equivalent and 'of'
is an alternative to a genitive, why not call Bengali a genitive of Bengal?
For comparison, 'cuisine of Mexico' and 'Mexican cuisine' are equivalent.
Does anyone call the 'an' in 'Mexican' a suffix of appurtenance?
Ross
2017-05-18 10:34:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Dingbat
Why is a suffix of appurtenance called so?
According to an example of the so-called suffix of appurtenance, the terminal
'i' in Israeli and Bengali is a 'suffix of appurtenance'. The 'a' word, to
my eye, makes the Israeli look like an appendage of Israel.
What would be wrong with the alternative of describing Israeli as the genitive
of Israel?
"Israel" and "Bengal" are not Latin nouns of the second declension, so
why would you want to inflect them as if they were?
I don't know about the case of Israeli but in the case of Bengali, you borrow
it after the 'i' has already been added, in a language that's not English.
So, it's not English that's adding the suffix.
Now, since 'cuisine of Bengal' and 'Bengali cuisine' are equivalent and 'of'
is an alternative to a genitive, why not call Bengali a genitive of Bengal?
For comparison, 'cuisine of Mexico' and 'Mexican cuisine' are equivalent.
Does anyone call the 'an' in 'Mexican' a suffix of appurtenance?
They certainly don't call it a genitive.

"Suffix of appurtenance" is not a standard term as far as I know. I can understand what it means, but I've never heard it before. You haven't
even said where you found it. Some century-old grammar? If whoever
used it to describe the -i in Bengali is still alive, you could ask them
whether they would also apply it to the -an of Mexican. They should.

You seem to be fixated on the idea of "appendage", which you apparently
see as degrading to the people so denoted. But in fact "appurtenance"
simply relates to the verb "appertain", which means to belong to in the
broadest possible sense. "Of or pertaining to" used to be a standard
feature of dictionary definitions of adjectives: Mexican, adj. Of or
pertaining to Mexico. Could be Mexican food, Mexican history, Mexican
literature, etc etc. Is it really degrading to say that people "pertain"
or "appertain" to their nation?
Don Phillipson
2017-05-18 11:19:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
I don't know about the case of Israeli but in the case of Bengali, you borrow
it after the 'i' has already been added, in a language that's not English.
So, it's not English that's adding the suffix.
The OP is mistaken. All these words are English and the rules they
follow (if any) are English rules, not Israeli or Bengali rules.
Post by Dingbat
Now, since 'cuisine of Bengal' and 'Bengali cuisine' are equivalent and 'of'
is an alternative to a genitive, why not call Bengali a genitive of Bengal?
For comparison, 'cuisine of Mexico' and 'Mexican cuisine' are equivalent.
1. These are proper nouns (names) rather than common nouns. We
know a priori that someof the rules for common nouns do not apply
to proper nouns.

2. The cited examples are different parts of speech: Bengal and Israel
are nouns while Bengali and Mexican are adjectives. The rules for
different parts of speech are nonuniform (e.g. plural nouns usually
differ from their singular form while adjectives do not modify that way.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
David Kleinecke
2017-05-18 16:44:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Dingbat
I don't know about the case of Israeli but in the case of Bengali, you borrow
it after the 'i' has already been added, in a language that's not English.
So, it's not English that's adding the suffix.
The OP is mistaken. All these words are English and the rules they
follow (if any) are English rules, not Israeli or Bengali rules.
Post by Dingbat
Now, since 'cuisine of Bengal' and 'Bengali cuisine' are equivalent and 'of'
is an alternative to a genitive, why not call Bengali a genitive of Bengal?
For comparison, 'cuisine of Mexico' and 'Mexican cuisine' are equivalent.
1. These are proper nouns (names) rather than common nouns. We
know a priori that someof the rules for common nouns do not apply
to proper nouns.
2. The cited examples are different parts of speech: Bengal and Israel
are nouns while Bengali and Mexican are adjectives. The rules for
different parts of speech are nonuniform (e.g. plural nouns usually
differ from their singular form while adjectives do not modify that way.)
And there is probably the Arabic '-i' meaning "inhabit of"
involved (as in Iraqi). Perhaps the suffix is also Hebrew.
Jerry Friedman
2017-05-18 17:32:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Dingbat
I don't know about the case of Israeli but in the case of Bengali, you borrow
it after the 'i' has already been added, in a language that's not English.
So, it's not English that's adding the suffix.
The OP is mistaken. All these words are English and the rules they
follow (if any) are English rules, not Israeli or Bengali rules.
Post by Dingbat
Now, since 'cuisine of Bengal' and 'Bengali cuisine' are equivalent and 'of'
is an alternative to a genitive, why not call Bengali a genitive of Bengal?
For comparison, 'cuisine of Mexico' and 'Mexican cuisine' are equivalent.
1. These are proper nouns (names) rather than common nouns. We
know a priori that someof the rules for common nouns do not apply
to proper nouns.
2. The cited examples are different parts of speech: Bengal and Israel
are nouns while Bengali and Mexican are adjectives. The rules for
different parts of speech are nonuniform (e.g. plural nouns usually
differ from their singular form while adjectives do not modify that way.)
And there is probably the Arabic '-i' meaning "inhabit of"
involved (as in Iraqi). Perhaps the suffix is also Hebrew.
It is. The Hebrew word for Israeli is Yisra'eliy (accent on the last
syllable).
--
Jerry Friedman
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-20 18:17:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Dingbat
I don't know about the case of Israeli but in the case of Bengali, you borrow
it after the 'i' has already been added, in a language that's not English.
So, it's not English that's adding the suffix.
The OP is mistaken. All these words are English and the rules they
follow (if any) are English rules, not Israeli or Bengali rules.
Post by Dingbat
Now, since 'cuisine of Bengal' and 'Bengali cuisine' are equivalent and 'of'
is an alternative to a genitive, why not call Bengali a genitive of Bengal?
For comparison, 'cuisine of Mexico' and 'Mexican cuisine' are equivalent.
1. These are proper nouns (names) rather than common nouns. We
know a priori that someof the rules for common nouns do not apply
to proper nouns.
2. The cited examples are different parts of speech: Bengal and Israel
are nouns while Bengali and Mexican are adjectives. The rules for
different parts of speech are nonuniform (e.g. plural nouns usually
differ from their singular form while adjectives do not modify that way.)
And there is probably the Arabic '-i' meaning "inhabit of"
involved (as in Iraqi). Perhaps the suffix is also Hebrew.
It's the nisbah which is general Semitic and a characteristic of
Afro-Asiatic as well.

The -i: adjectivial suffix of Persian is homophonous
but of independent origin, IIRC Middle Persian *-i:g

The suffix is found in Indic languages, and I remember
being told that it yet of independent origin as well!
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-05-20 18:32:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Dingbat
I don't know about the case of Israeli but in the case of Bengali, you borrow
it after the 'i' has already been added, in a language that's not English.
So, it's not English that's adding the suffix.
The OP is mistaken. All these words are English and the rules they
follow (if any) are English rules, not Israeli or Bengali rules.
Post by Dingbat
Now, since 'cuisine of Bengal' and 'Bengali cuisine' are equivalent and 'of'
is an alternative to a genitive, why not call Bengali a genitive of Bengal?
For comparison, 'cuisine of Mexico' and 'Mexican cuisine' are equivalent.
1. These are proper nouns (names) rather than common nouns. We
know a priori that someof the rules for common nouns do not apply
to proper nouns.
2. The cited examples are different parts of speech: Bengal and Israel
are nouns while Bengali and Mexican are adjectives. The rules for
different parts of speech are nonuniform (e.g. plural nouns usually
differ from their singular form while adjectives do not modify that way.)
And there is probably the Arabic '-i' meaning "inhabit of"
involved (as in Iraqi). Perhaps the suffix is also Hebrew.
It's the nisbah which is general Semitic and a characteristic of
Afro-Asiatic as well.
The -i: adjectivial suffix of Persian is homophonous
but of independent origin, IIRC Middle Persian *-i:g
The suffix is found in Indic languages, and I remember
being told that it yet of independent origin as well!
It's just one letter, after all. It would be extraordinary if only one
language family had chosen it.
--
athel
Jerry Friedman
2017-05-20 22:32:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Dingbat
I don't know about the case of Israeli but in the case of Bengali, you borrow
it after the 'i' has already been added, in a language that's not English.
So, it's not English that's adding the suffix.
The OP is mistaken. All these words are English and the rules they
follow (if any) are English rules, not Israeli or Bengali rules.
Post by Dingbat
Now, since 'cuisine of Bengal' and 'Bengali cuisine' are equivalent and 'of'
is an alternative to a genitive, why not call Bengali a genitive of Bengal?
For comparison, 'cuisine of Mexico' and 'Mexican cuisine' are equivalent.
1. These are proper nouns (names) rather than common nouns. We
know a priori that someof the rules for common nouns do not apply
to proper nouns.
2. The cited examples are different parts of speech: Bengal and Israel
are nouns while Bengali and Mexican are adjectives. The rules for
different parts of speech are nonuniform (e.g. plural nouns usually
differ from their singular form while adjectives do not modify that way.)
And there is probably the Arabic '-i' meaning "inhabit of"
involved (as in Iraqi). Perhaps the suffix is also Hebrew.
It's the nisbah which is general Semitic and a characteristic of
Afro-Asiatic as well.
The -i: adjectivial suffix of Persian is homophonous
but of independent origin, IIRC Middle Persian *-i:g
The suffix is found in Indic languages, and I remember
being told that it yet of independent origin as well!
It's just one letter, after all. It would be extraordinary if only one
language family had chosen it.
But it's interesting that neighboring language families have chosen
it. Maybe not astonishing.
--
Jerry Friedman
Yusuf B Gursey
2017-05-20 23:30:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Dingbat
I don't know about the case of Israeli but in the case of Bengali, you borrow
it after the 'i' has already been added, in a language that's not English.
So, it's not English that's adding the suffix.
The OP is mistaken. All these words are English and the rules they
follow (if any) are English rules, not Israeli or Bengali rules.
Post by Dingbat
Now, since 'cuisine of Bengal' and 'Bengali cuisine' are equivalent and 'of'
is an alternative to a genitive, why not call Bengali a genitive of Bengal?
For comparison, 'cuisine of Mexico' and 'Mexican cuisine' are equivalent.
1. These are proper nouns (names) rather than common nouns. We
know a priori that someof the rules for common nouns do not apply
to proper nouns.
2. The cited examples are different parts of speech: Bengal and Israel
are nouns while Bengali and Mexican are adjectives. The rules for
different parts of speech are nonuniform (e.g. plural nouns usually
differ from their singular form while adjectives do not modify that way.)
And there is probably the Arabic '-i' meaning "inhabit of"
involved (as in Iraqi). Perhaps the suffix is also Hebrew.
It's the nisbah which is general Semitic and a characteristic of
Afro-Asiatic as well.
The -i: adjectivial suffix of Persian is homophonous
but of independent origin, IIRC Middle Persian *-i:g
The suffix is found in Indic languages, and I remember
being told that it yet of independent origin as well!
It's just one letter, after all. It would be extraordinary if only one
language family had chosen it.
Actually it's -iyy + case ending in Classical Arabic (so
in Proto-Semitic) which becomes -iyy > i: in "pause"
i.e. at the end of a sentence or a pause in the sentence
or when it is alone. This pausal form is general in Spoken Arabic
the feminine is -iyyat + case ending -iyyah in pause.

In Middle Persian the common adjectivial suffix was -i:g
which became -i: in New Persian and used in Kurdish.

The coincidental homophony, which is relatively recent,
led to their use in similar semantic fields.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
--
athel
Loading...