h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

We Irish mangle not only English but other languages pretty well. Italian particularly: you can buy 'a panini' and the starter is pronounced 'brew-shetta' everywhere. The Italian waiters go mildly along with this; it's another language. When not in Rome, do as the Romans don't.

Our mangling of English is more creative, of course. A politician on radio recently exonerated our taoiseach (prime minister) by saying 'He was caught in the cross-hairs of an economic tsunami'.

<>

Us Brits manage that just as well, Recumbentman. Although to be fair, talking about one strand of spaghetto would sound a bit odd. Or, are they now English words, and not Italian any more?

One spaghetto, two spaghetti, three spaghetti, four,
Five spaghetti, six spaghetti, seven spaghetti, more . . .

Does that make the plural of potato potati?





Sorry, I'l get me coat...

t.

I know this subject has been discussed before, perhaps a couple of times, but it was never really resolved for me and I have encountered so many variables in usage lately that I have become truly confused.

It's that old '-ic' and '-al' and '-ical' problem.

Here's my best understanding of it.
We use '-ic' to suggest an immediate relationship and '-ical' to suggest a less tenuous connection to whatever we are modifying.

For example, the Lincoln Memorial is an Historic Monument. Don't let the CAPS fool you, it does bear that formal name officially. But in the lower case it is truly an historic monument.

It wasn't; not on the day it was built, when it was just an histor-ICAL monument, a monument dedicated to history and historic facts. Then it was itself new and sparkly and had no history of its own. It was historical in nature and design, a connection to history not then a part of it.

Obviously in the decades since it was opened it has become part of newer history and now it has a history all its own. So it really is historic now and not just historical.

But when I try to apply this rule of immediacy versus a more distanced connectivity to other forms where '-ic' and 'ical' are used in a seemingly indiscriminate way I find myself confused by the usage of others.

Most often it is the BBC (and other news sources) which drive me nuts. I get most upset by things like 'ironical'. It seems to me something is either ironic or it's not. At best 'ironical' is itself an ironic comment on itself.

Jus' saying...
~jwf~

Similarly but conversely, last Friday the Irish made what is hailed as a historic decision, to accept the Lisbon Treaty. In time, this will fade into less dramatic colouring, and become merely a historical fact.

There is a distinction between the -ic and the -ical. In Dublin we have Botanic Gardens (consisting of plants) and Zoological Gardens (containing specimens of zoological interest). The Botanic Gardens are also of botanical interest, but the Zoological Gardens are not themselves zoic.

Compare music/musical, technique/technical, graphic/graphical.

Historic and historical are two quite different words. Historic means noteworthy. Historical means noted in history.

I suspect further thought and more examples will be necessary to achieve a stew of new ideas on this subject. Some of these may seem legitimate, others less so.

problematic/problematical
charismatic/charismatical

ironic/ironical
iconic/iconical

mystic/mystical
clinic/clinical

practic/pratical
chemic/chemical

It seems a lot of confusion arises from not understanding that many nouns end in 'ic' and require an '-al' to become adjectives.
And, meanwhile, many adjectives also end in '-ic'.
So adding '-al' to an '-ic' adjective is usually an unnecessary redundancy; even if it seems a logical stage toward the infernal adverbial formation '-ically'.
ie:
ironically or drastically are based on no legitimate '=ical' adjective formation (drastical? ) while legitimate forms like 'practically' or 'chemically' come from the legitimate adjectives 'practical' and 'chemical' but these have no noun bases
('practic' or 'chemic') like clinic or cynic or mystic.

The number of variations and possibilities in this question is quite daunting. It is easy to take a few samples and jump to a conclusion. But the question comes up again and again.

While I seek no definitive rule or answer to the problem (being naturally averse to rules) I do live in hope of understanding some of the patterns that weave all these variable usages.


~jwf~

PS:
I agree that historic and historical have different meanings but I can't see a distinction between 'noteworthy' and 'noted'. My idea is that a genuine relic (such as an antique flintlock rifle) is historic but a replica or reproduction of such a relic is merely 'historical', relating to history but not an actual a participant in the history.

A monument or memorial is 'historical', relating to history, but not itself part of the original history it commemorates. The 'Mary Rose' is an historic artifact but any museum or public display built around it will be merely 'historical' until it achieves some history of, and for, itself.

Napoleon is an historic figure, but a Napoleon impersonator is at best doing an historical recreation. Even the crazy ones!

<> That sounds like an interesting title for a new "Ask" thread.

I agree with all the definitions on the "ic" vs "ical" endings. And have learnt from them, especially jwf's clarification that some nouns end in "ic", while some only have "ic" added to make the adjective.

But surely the difference between "noteworthy" and "noted" is that if something is "noteworthy" you could take/make note of it, but don't necessarily, while if it is "noted" - it is, well, "noted"? Or was that ?

Trivia can be noted without being specially noteworthy.

The noun practice (practise in US) is equivalent to the German Praktik.

Anything ending in 'ic' or 'ics' would have ended in 'ick' in the eighteenth century: physick, mathematick(s), logick . . .

My point, or question, or beef, is about those adjectives that end in '-ic' which seem to be getting an '-ical' lately.

There are several which have not yet, and I live in fear that they soon may:
Sardonic
Arthritic
Laconic
Barbaric

I swear I've already seen or heard such horrors as:
pendantical
ironical

But my chief bugbear is still the reversed usage of historic for such things as re-enactments and replicas (which really are not) and historical for items and events of actual history. The Magna Carta is an historic event and document. It is (I assume) displayed in an historical display not an historic one (unless said display has itself become a part of some other history).


~jwf~

<>

Yes - some of them are quite comic(al)

Cutting two letters would be econimic(al)

you know what I mean

The inimic Recumbentman!

No no I'm perfectly imic(al)

My ongoing reflections on ìcs and icals has led me to consider the possible
psychological variables that have created this uncertainty which makes people say
ical when all they need is an ic.

I have begun a list of words that rime with ical but otherwise have nothing to do with it.
Icicle
Pickle
Tickle
Trickle
Sickle

All these so far have about them some sense of smallness or diminuation, in that none
are really considered big or important things in the overall schema of Life, the Uni et al.

A sickle for example is basically a scythe with a shorter handle and smaller blade. A trickle
is a very small stream of water. Tickling is usually considered childish or trivial or foolish.
Pickles are usually made from the smallest cucumbers. Icicles melt and get smaller.

I`ve noticed that some of the girly types who occasionally lapse into sweet baby-talk will
say ìckle when they mean little.

There seems to be a subconscious link between the sound of ìcal-ickle and a sense of
smallness. But so far that doesn`t help to explain why people are putting als on their ics
when an ic is sufficient. Except perhaps in my primary example of historic and historical
where it would seem to support my contention that historic is the real thing (the real deal)
while historical is not really such a big deal, being only marginally related or subordinant to
the real thing.


jwf

The whole things seems farcical to me

Also, "many a mickle makes a muckle".
As far as I'm concerned, you can say historic or historical for replayed battles - AS LONG AS YOU DON'T PUT "AN" IN FRONT