The road NOT travelled

This week's instalment of The Book Yet To Come is another excerpt from the first draft of  the Introduction. In it I try to limit the donkey-work, by ruling out patterns of recurrent and predictable forms.

First draft of another part of the Introduction

In compiling this collection of words I have made the following exceptions from those found in the Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners for reasons of practicability and space:

General

1. Words that have their "l" preceded by a pair of vowels.  These are already covered in When Vowels Get Together. There are very few of these words.
2. Words included in the Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners  that are in common use only in certain national standard dialects (for example rello   [Australian English] or rondavel  [South African English]). These are of limited importance for only a few students of English as a Foreign Language.
3. Words that begin with the letters "un-" in their role as negative-forming prefix – unelected etc. (Of course, this exclusion does not apply to words such "unilateral"; students of ESOL  may find  it useful to note that un- words that do not use the letters as a negative-forming prefix tend  not to have the sound /ʌ/, although they do in some [for example under ].)

Specific

*AL*

1. Adjectives ending -al (and the "-ally" adverbs derived from them). These are exceedingly numerous; including them would have almost doubled the number of -al- words. In any case there is often a derived noun – which is included (for example sabbatical, spiritual, terminal...).
2. Abstract nouns, and verbs formed from adjectives excluded by 1 (for example, abnormality, finalis/ze, professionalism...).

*EL*

1.  Adverbs formed from a word that ends with a Magic E . This results in an "-ely" ending, and words with this ending represent over 11% of all the -el- words noted in the Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners.   

2. The same restrictions apply equally  to the many adjectives  that end -ly,  often describing a personal trait [comely, lovely, shapely....], and their derivatives. 

3. Words ending in "-eless[-ly | ness]", formed from a root that  ends with a Magic E .  These are not nearly as numerous as the words described in 1, but their inclusion would have been pointless (given their regularity).

 *IL*

1. Words ending "-ily" when they are adverbs derived from adjectives ending in  "-y" (of which the Macmillan English Dictionary lists nearly 200) – so words such as "wily" are  included, but not – for example – angrily).
2. Words ending either "-ability" or "-ibility" (of which the Macmillan English Dictionary lists over 100). In these words the spelling "-il-" always represents the sound /ɪl/.
3. Words that use the prefix il- (of which the Macmillan English Dictionary lists well over 50).

Many words use the prefix tri- to introduce the idea of threeness. But you don't pronounce trilateral */trɪ`lætərəl/, nor do you pronounce  trilogy  */`traɪləʤi: /.  Since the pronunciation of this prefix is not predictable, students of ESOL will be glad to know that these words are all separately listed under the appropriate sound (/aɪ/ or /ɪ/). Note also that words starting "tri-" do not always have this as a prefix. In the word tribune, for example, the "tri-" comes from the Latin tribus ["tribe"]  although a mistaken etymological view has sometimes led to organizations setting up tribunals with three adjudicators.

*OL*

1. Words that end "-ol<vowel> tion*" (where the "*" represents any other additional suffix  - or none). The letters "ol" qualify for this special exclusion for  two reasons: In all these words the letters "ol" represent the sound /əl/.
2. These words outnumber the sum of all  "-al<vowel>tion*", "-el<vowel>tion*",  and
   "-il<vowel>tion*". (Another  exclusion applies to "-ul<vowel>tion*", but the sound that "ul" represents is different.)
3. Words ending "-ology" (and their derivatives – words ending "-ologist", "-ologism",
   "-ological" etc.) There are nearly 150 of these – more than an eighth of all *OL* words listed in the Macmillan English Dictionary; and they are perfectly regular, with /ɒ/ in  "-ology",
   "-ologous", "-ologist" and "-ologism", and /əl/ in other derivatives.  Theologian  is included because it is the only word listed with that ending; the person who practises any other "-ology" is an "-ologist" – an archaeologist, a biologist, a cardiologist... a technologist, a urologist, a zoologist and all the other experts in between.

*UL*

1. Words that end "-ul<vowel>tion*" (where the "*" represents any other additional suffix  – or none). The letters "ul" qualify for this special exclusion for two reasons:
   1. In nearly all these words the letters "ul" represent the sound /jʊl/.
   2. Exceptions can apply when there is assimilation to a preceding /t/  (resulting in /tʃʊl/), as in congratulation. However, the Macmillan English Dictionary does not apply this optional feature consistently, transcribing  capitulation with an unassimilated /tjʊl/. Besides, in a context where a speaker assimilates /t/ to /jʊl/ to give /tʃʊl/, one would expect them  to do the same, mutatis mutandis, to other dentals  – giving the assimilation of /d/ with a following /jʊl/ to /ʤʊl/. But the Macmillan English Dictionary transcribes adulation with /djʊl/. Assimilation is often a matter of context, and never forces a distinction of meaning.
   These words outnumber the sum of all words spelt "-al<vowel>tion*", "-el<vowel>tion*",  and "-il<vowel> tion*". (Another  exclusion applies to "-ol<vowel> tion*" (see below), but the sound that "ol" represents is different). 


2. Words that end "-ful[ly]". The Macmillan English Dictionary lists over 150 of these, and has three ways of transcribing them:
   
   1. With (ə)l/ – by far the commonest
   2. With /ʊl/ – usually when the word refers to a volume, e.g. spoonful, bowlful... (less than 20%)
   3. With /l/ – that is, a syllabic consonant; this occurs  in one word only – healthful
    Any audible difference between cases 1 and 2 is hard (if not impossible) to discern ,   especially in very close pairs like artful (with /ə/) and armful (with /ʊ/); possibly the transcription is influenced by the clear  sense of something being full. In any case, native speakers do not observe this distinction with any rigour, and I have never met a self-styled "rule" that requires it. Either is acceptable. Case 3 is  surely accidental; there is nothing exceptional about the pronunciation of healthful.

Update 2016.05.10.12:55 –Added statistical reflection

PS March is the cruellest month. Exhibit A is a graph showing the Blogger stats for this blog since January.

By 10 May it has had as many visitors as in the whole...

<mini_rant>
or entirety as everyone seems to be saying nowadays, in the tiresome belief that 

          syllable count ∝ intensity of feeling              

There‘s nothing wrong with entirety, but  it doesn't just mean "whole [and did you know I went to university?]".

This graph (Exhibit B, courtesy of Collins) shows a steady increase in usage over the last 300-odd years, but the graph runs out over 8 years ago, and the change I'm talking about has been happening over just that period

          </mini_rant>

....of March.