Print

Print


On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 18:29:24 +0200, kechpaja <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 09:12:45AM -0700, Logan Kearsley wrote:
>> On 6 February 2018 at 16:22, And Rosta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > ps I do realize, thanks to some wikipediaing today, that _dechticaetiative_
>> > is not utterly without etymological warrant, but I do still rather feel
>> > that it is without orthological beauty.
>>
>> I quite agree. I knew that I knew about what the word referred to, but
>> it took looking it up on Wikipedia myself to remember what exactly
>> that was. I have never been able to retain that term well (so it's
>> good thing it never came up on a syntax midterm or anything like
>> that!), and I'm quite sure the aesthetic failure of the word itself
>> (not to mention it's total failure to suggests a pronunciation for
>> itself to my mind)
>
>/,dɛk.tə'keɪ.ʃə.təv/?

The third syllable I would make /ˈsiː/ (or however you like to serve your FLEECE), as in _Caesar_, but otherwise I'm with you.

I am not overly bothered by "dechticaetiative", but I will agree there's too much stùff in the word.  "Dechtic" would have done fine, except maybe for not ending in _-ive_ like Latinate case names should.  

Puts me in mind of a mathematical example I like (h/t Bruce Reznick).  There's a certain polynomial known as the "catalecticant", introduced in 1852 by Sylvester, a man of great classical erudition; in a footnote he says that he at first wanted to name it "meicatalecticisant" but -- thankfully -- thought better of it.  The name is from Greek metrics: a catalectic line of verse is one whose final foot is truncated, which is not an unreasonable analogy for the situation this polynomial detects but I certainly wouldn't've thought of it.

Alex