Rooseveltian or Rooseveltesque or Rooseveltite

[Jaggers]

Could only find this thread on -esque, and it's now closed
https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/126612-sque-suffix.html

Are there rules about using suffixes -esque and -ian as in Rooseveltesque and Rooseveltian to describe things as having a quality of FD Roosevelt? And what about the suffix -ite; next week sees the funeral of former UK prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, and her legacies are described as "Thatcherite", so would Rooseveltite be acceptable?

There will be new examples every day - is it Chavaesque or Chavaian or Chavaite, and presumably it comes down to what feels right - "Chavaian" and "Chavaite" feel less natural. On the other hand more than one might be acceptable, it seems.

 

[bhaisahab]

On the other hand more than one might be acceptable, it seems.

Probably.

 

[5jj]

A Thatcherite politician might well not be Thatcheresque.

 

[probus]

I think that the answer to this whole class of questions depends mainly on euphony, and to a small extent on humour: e.g. the delightful Liverpuddlian.

 

[Jaggers]

Hi 5jj,

How do you mean? Is -ite more philosophical and -esque more physical, for example?

 

[5jj]

How do you mean? Is -ite more philosophical and -esque more physical, for example?

In the case of Thatcher, the -ite word suggests to me politics and the -esque word suggests mental characteristics. I think it's difficult to make any firm generalisations. As probus suggested, euphony plays a part; possibly humour does too.

The safe thing for learners is not to attempt to create such words; not many native speakers do.

 

[Tdol]

A Thatcherite politician would agree with and support her aims. A Thatcheresque politician would display similar characteristics but could have very different political ideas.

 

[BobK]

I'd endorse 5jj's advice. Don't innovate. There are many such suffixes, all with different connotations, and there are many existing oddities. For example, if you invent "Chavian" you'll risk confusion with the existing 'Shavian' - which refers to George Bernard Shaw.

b

 

[konungursvia]

Possibly, but one must read this Russel Brand article if one brings up Thatcherites.

Russell Brand on Margaret Thatcher: 'I always felt sorry for her children' | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[Jaggers]

Thanks for responses but I'm not sure the "don't innovate" is particularly sound advice. English is a big language, but having the ability to turn a person's qualities into a recognisable adjective enriches the language - we could refer to a comment as sarcastic, biting, pitiless, provocative but wouldn't Cowellesque provide a richer description in certain circumstances.

 

[5jj]

Thanks for responses but I'm not sure the "don't innovate" is particularly sound advice. English is a big language, but having the ability to turn a person's qualities into a recognisable adjective enriches the language - we could refer to a comment as sarcastic, biting, pitiless, provocative but wouldn't Cowellesque provide a richer description in certain circumstances.

You might think so. The problem is that the form that seems to be used is 'Simon Cowellesque', two words. One never knows what the form, if any, that is accepted/used will be. That is why I suggested that learners should not try to innovate.

 

[Jaggers]

Fair enough 5jj,

Though like "Thatcherite" and "Hitlerian" hasn't Simon Cowell earned the simple "Cowellesque"?! Thanks again!

 

[5jj]

Though like "Thatcherite" and "Hitlerian" hasn't Simon Cowell earned the simple "Cowellesque"?

Possibly, but it doesn't appear to have happened yet.

I know I am going on about this, but even native speakers do not know what words will be accepted and used by others until they have been accepted and used by others.

 

[Tdol]

It's a collective process- you can throw Cowellesque out and see if it works, but the speech community will decide.

 

[BobK]

:up: I'm all for innovation, but recognize this as an area where it's easy to get egg on your face. For example, I could have said 'ovifacial' there, but it wouldn't have communicated much.

b

 

[Jaggers]

No, but if you kept making that kind of comment, the community on here would understand what Bobkesque meant!

I think one of the first sentences in "100 years of solitude" is "the world was a recent place and many things in it still lacked names and sometimes it was easier to point" and although English is a huge language, it is sometimes easier to point to something which hits bullseye what you're trying to say. And sometimes, that might include taking a proper noun and adding a suffix.