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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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*
- 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...).
- 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*
- 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).
- 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/.
- 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*
- 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/.
- 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.)
- 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*
- 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:
- In nearly all these words the letters "ul" represent the sound /jʊl/.
- 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).
- Words that end "-ful[ly]". The Macmillan English Dictionary lists over 150 of these, and has three ways of transcribing them:
- With (ə)l/ – by far the commonest
- With /ʊl/ – usually when the word refers to a volume, e.g. spoonful, bowlful... (less than 20%)
- 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.
