On 4/25/07, Dirk Elzinga <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 4/25/07, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > But that's probably not what you meant; you were talking about a case where
> > +D and +E are normally completely independent processes, but the word ABCD
> > forms a gap and just happens not to exist, while ABCDE does occur?  As if,

> > Can anyone cite any (nat- or con-)instances of this sort of situation?
> Here are some words from English which add -ally (< -al -ly) directly
> to the stem without an intermediate form in -al. Interestingly, all of
> these forms end in -ic, but it is not the case that a form in -ic must
> add -ally directly--fundamental, logical, musical, etc. (I snarfed
> these from the English Lexicon Project.)

In at least some cases the -al word used to exist but has become
archaic (it was a synonym of the -ic word anyway): e.g.,
poetical, piratical....

> dogmatically    {dogma}>tic>>ally>

dogmatical gets 78K Ghits.

> egotistically   {ego}>tist>>ic>>ally>

egotistical gets 1,710K Ghits.

> enigmatically   {enigma}>tic>>ally>

Over 100K Ghits.

I didn't search all words, just a subset of those I vaguely remembered seeing
used in the -ical form before.

Jim Henry