Why has the "ist" sufix come to be a negative term in the minds of the "PC" crowd? Kenneth Boulding said in about 1977, "There is something in the 'ist' sound that conveys an almost snakelike hissing and venom." Yet we use many words with that suffix in a purely neutral, or positive way. Why is a sexist bad, whereas a bicyclist is neutral (if you're not stuck behind one) and a classicist is good?

Interesting question, Asa. It reminds me of my question a few months ago about the prefix "de", which can mean without (i.e. "deice") or with (i.e. delight). I think in both cases the original meanings were different and that there have not been changes. However, don't quote me on that!

I think your have to go back to the root word with -ism before deciding on good or bad. Only if you think monarchism bad will you consider monarchist to be an insult.

Graham, what you say makes sense to a degree, yet one would not say, motorism, for example, but would say motorist. Before the 1960s, I don't remember the "ist" suffix being used as a pejorative, so I'm puzzled as to how so many people came to filch from words their own good names. What is the social mechanism by which words become sullied?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
Before the 1960s, I don't remember the "ist" suffix being used as a pejorative, so I'm puzzled as to how so many people came to filch from words their own good names. What is the social mechanism by which words become sullied?

---

There's a simple one word answer to your query - "journalism" "!



Vescere bracis meis.

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

Is there a botulist in the house?


or a rheumatist ???

[This message was edited by jerry thomas on Fri Apr 18th, 2003 at 11:24.]