Angela's Literary Pet Peeve #173
Adding -ic to something doesn't make you smart
Naturalistic perspective? No, it's naturalist. It's the perspective of the naturalist. Humanistic approach? Nope, it's humanist. It just is, okay?
It's a pointless suffix - when you look up these words in the dictionary, the original noun is also referred to as an adjective. There is no NEED for another adjective! It's not even acceptably poetic - it's clunky and unnecessary. Try reading out your paper in which you use the word feministic. It's painful. You wouldn't say 'behaviouralistic' would you? Because it's too long and unwieldy and pointless! Well, the other words you're using? Are equally pompous and ridiculous and don't make you sound smart at all.
Do you say Fauvistic? No, you say Fauvist. Do you say Modernistic? No, you say Modernist. Do you say fundamentalistic? HELL NO.
And don't say you use it to differentiate between the words that are simply nouns, not adjectives (eg theorist, geneticist) That's what context is for.
The only word I don't have too much of a problem with is monotheistic. Because it fits a little better into sentences than monotheist.
And there's always exceptions to the rule, that's what language is like. But you all know when you're going overboard, you all know that the words autistic and holistic are perfectly acceptable under this umbrella but misogynistic and onanistic (and no, there is no connection between my choice of words) is overkill.
Please, do the right thing and cull your ics.
(p.s. not directed at anyone in particular, just a general observation)
Naturalistic perspective? No, it's naturalist. It's the perspective of the naturalist. Humanistic approach? Nope, it's humanist. It just is, okay?
It's a pointless suffix - when you look up these words in the dictionary, the original noun is also referred to as an adjective. There is no NEED for another adjective! It's not even acceptably poetic - it's clunky and unnecessary. Try reading out your paper in which you use the word feministic. It's painful. You wouldn't say 'behaviouralistic' would you? Because it's too long and unwieldy and pointless! Well, the other words you're using? Are equally pompous and ridiculous and don't make you sound smart at all.
Do you say Fauvistic? No, you say Fauvist. Do you say Modernistic? No, you say Modernist. Do you say fundamentalistic? HELL NO.
And don't say you use it to differentiate between the words that are simply nouns, not adjectives (eg theorist, geneticist) That's what context is for.
The only word I don't have too much of a problem with is monotheistic. Because it fits a little better into sentences than monotheist.
And there's always exceptions to the rule, that's what language is like. But you all know when you're going overboard, you all know that the words autistic and holistic are perfectly acceptable under this umbrella but misogynistic and onanistic (and no, there is no connection between my choice of words) is overkill.
Please, do the right thing and cull your ics.
(p.s. not directed at anyone in particular, just a general observation)