sylvar (
sylvar
) wrote
2008
-
03
-
18
07:07 pm
Current Mood:
curious
Entry tags:
english
,
etymology
,
greek
,
linguistics
Maybe it's a silly question, but I suspect it isn't...
Why is there no 'g' in 'theorem'?
Flat
|
Top-Level Comments Only
no subject
creases.livejournal.com
2008-03-18 11:16 pm (UTC)
(
link
)
Where would the g go?
no subject
regality3.livejournal.com
2008-03-19 12:38 am (UTC)
(
link
)
Theoregm, as in phlegm?
no subject
creases.livejournal.com
2008-03-19 12:56 am (UTC)
(
link
)
Ah, okay. Well, the issue here is that there are different roots (and also different suffixes).
The g in words like "phlegm" or "paradigm" is part of the root (phleg-, heat; paradeig-, to exhibit beside), not the suffix. The suffix is -ma.
The root for "theorem" is theōr-, which means to behold. The suffix is -ēma.
Does that answer make sense?
no subject
sylvar.livejournal.com
2008-03-19 02:46 am (UTC)
(
link
)
Yes, thank you. That was exactly the sort of answer I hoped to get.
4 comments
Post a new comment
Flat
|
Top-Level Comments Only
[
Home
|
Post Entry
|
Log in
|
Search
|
Browse Options
|
Site Map
]
no subject
no subject
no subject
The g in words like "phlegm" or "paradigm" is part of the root (phleg-, heat; paradeig-, to exhibit beside), not the suffix. The suffix is -ma.
The root for "theorem" is theōr-, which means to behold. The suffix is -ēma.
Does that answer make sense?
no subject