3 ms·

I'm not sure what you think "etymology" or a "root" is. The word is quite regularly formed via English derivational morphology. Start with "shit", which -- li

I'm not sure what you think "etymology" or a "root" is. The word is quite regularly formed via English derivational morphology. Start with "shit", which -- like every word that isn't a pure coinage -- has an etymology[0], going back to the (hypothesized) Proto-Indo European root "skei-" (it's cognate with "scissors"!). Then it's just combined with the well-known affixes "en-" and "-ification", each of which has a history of its own (have you ever wondered why there's a "c" there in that suffix instead of the more regular "-ifiation" that would result from directly combining "-ify" and "-ation"? There's a reason!). Like, you appear to be using these words in a nonstandard way; I'm not sure why you expect anyone to know what you're talking about as a result. I would suggest defining your terms if you want to be clear. I mean sure it's a pretty dumb word and hardly the one I'd use. But you're seemingly talking nonsense about etymology. [0] Note that "etymology" is often used to mean "known etymology", so in that sense a word can have no etymology, but that's not what I mean here.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> have you ever wondered why there's a "c" there in that suffix instead of the more regular "-ifiation" that would result from directly combining "-ify" and "-ation"? Well, I wouldn't wonder about a hypothetical -ifiation, because that would have involved a perceived need to derive a verb in -ate from a verb in -fy, and the English -ate derivational suffix producing verbs doesn't really provide any semantics, so there's no point in applying it to something that's already a verb. But you do raise a good point about -fication in general; I would expect the form to be -faction, as indeed it is in liquefaction and putrefaction. (Or -fection, as it is in perfection and confection.) This is because the -io(n) suffix is applied to the stem of the fourth principle part of a Latin verb, and the fourth principle part of facio is factum, not *ficatum. We see many words in -ation because many Latin verbs use the regular fourth principle part stem ending of -at-, and when you combine -io(n) onto that you get -atio(n). But we shouldn't see anything in -ication. I note that etymonline observes that petrification is "etymologically better than the more common petrifaction". This is interesting for two reasons; first, it must be many decades out of date (at least), and second, it states that the form in -fication is to be preferred to -faction. It also (under the entry for petrify) traces this to a Latin verb petrificare, but wiktionary (generally more up to date) mentions no such verb and attributes the form petrification to a formation in French. The fact that the combining form of facio, facere in Latin is -ficio, -ficere makes me suspicious of etymonline's description of "-ficare" as "the combining form of facere".

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> have you ever wondered why there's a "c" there in that suffix instead of the more regular "-ifiation" that would result from directly combining "-ify" and "-ation"? Well, I wouldn't wonder about a hypothetical -ifiation, because that would have involved a perceived need to derive a verb in -ate from a verb in -fy, and the English -ate derivational suffix producing verbs doesn't really provide any semantics, so there's no point in applying it to something that's already a verb. But you do raise a good point about -fication in general; I would expect the form to be -faction, as indeed it is in liquefaction and putrefaction. (Or -fection, as it is in perfection and confection.) This is because the -io(n) suffix is applied to the stem of the fourth principle part of a Latin verb, and the fourth principle part of facio is factum, not *ficatum. We see many words in -ation because many Latin verbs use the regular fourth principle part stem ending of -at-, and when you combine -io(n) onto that you get -atio(n). But we shouldn't see anything in -ication. I note that etymonline observes that petrification is "etymologically better than the more common petrifaction". This is interesting for two reasons; first, it must be many decades out of date (at least), and second, it states that the form in -fication is to be preferred to -faction. It also (under the entry for petrify) traces this to a Latin verb petrificare, but wiktionary (generally more up to date) mentions no such verb and attributes the form petrification to a formation in French. The fact that the combining form of facio, facere in Latin is -ficio, -ficere makes me suspicious of etymonline's description of "-ficare" as "the combining form of facere".