Kat Reading

Kat Reading

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Wouldn't the word just be "AUDIST"?

I have been perusing the blogs of late and something has been driving me batty. This word "audistic". That word makes no sense to me...linguistically speaking.

The word "audism" is derived similarly to words like "sexism" and "racism", correct? Well, when someone makes a statement that is derogatory to a particular race, that statement is "racist" and that person may be a "racist". Same with the word "sexism". The statement would be "sexist" and the person "sexist" as well.

Ergo..a statement would be "audist" not "audistic". The person would also be an "audist".

If there is a linguist out there who would like to correct me, feel free, but I think this makes more sense than "audistic".


Anonymous said...

according to people, the word audist or audism does not exist. Nor deafhood. Nor "Pah!"

Deaf people make up their own terms, we always had. yes,even oral deaf when they don't have full access to language so our grammars never really parallel with hearing world.

doesn't mean hearing people don't make up sign languages that isn't really a sign language.

leah said...

I am pretty sure the ending "ic" is an adjective. So the noun would be "audist" and someone who displays tendencies toward audism could be called an "audistic person." As in:

"Bob is an audist."
"Bob has audistic tendencies."
"Bob is a proponent of audism."

I'm not a linguist, though - I'm sure someone could parse the grammar better than I can!

Joseph Pietro Riolo said...

Good question.

You may want to check http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-istic . In the English language, there is a great deal of flexibility in creating adjectives out of nouns. I don't know of any general guidelines but it seems that it is up to the people to decide how to form adjectives out of nouns that end in -ism. "Audist" could be used as a noun or adjective if people decide that way but it seems that people already decided that "audist" is used only as a noun and "audistic" is used as an adjective.

Some examples of other words ending in -istic are artistic, futuristic, fatalistic and Buddhistic. If you enter "*istic" in the search box at www.onelook.com, you will see a long list of words ending in –istic.

Joseph Pietro Riolo

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.

Miss Kat's Parents said...

I'm not saying that "istic" is never correct, but since this word was pulled directly from "racism" and "sexism" wouldn't it stand to reason that it would follow the pattern?

(Oh, and just because most people write the word that way does NOT convince me that it is correct. I hope to heaven that U R and 4 will never be concidered appropriate in the English language just because the majority of people use them. Heck, most people don't know the difference between, your, you're and two, to, and too, but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference!)

Joseph Pietro Riolo said...

It could seem logical and reasonable that just because the idea for "audism" came from sexism and racism that it should follow the form that they adopted for adjective. But, language does not always work that way.

As for whether the majority of people are correct for using words, it depends on where you stand on the spectrum ranging from descriptivism to prescriptivism.

Joseph Pietro Riolo

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.

OCDAC said...

The Orange County Deaf Advocacy Center http://www.deafadvocacy.org gets all excited whenever there is news of babies getting cochlear implants and news that parents are opting to get their child cochlearm implants. We have a rich website that supports the reasoning for cochlear implants http://www.tinyurl.com/deafbabies and this website beats out other websites that promote cultures of dependency and zeals of living in a closed deaf society. The best life journey for deaf babies begins with sound, listening, and speaking.

Shel said...

Isn't language grand?

The nice thing about languages is that they're quite fluid... changing depending on circumstances, new experiences and new technology, etc.

I have to admit that the -istic suffix doesn't fit with racism or sexism. There's no such things as racistic or sexistic. Hence, audistic shouldn't be used. The -ic suffix should be removed. Yet, I find myself adding that suffix. Why? Good question since strictly speaking it's not grammatical.

I agree wholehearted re: your hope that U 4 will never be considered appropriate in English.

Nothing irks a teacher like seeing computer lingo pop up in essays. Out comes the red ink!

Language isn't a frozen, static thing that freezes for all time. The day that happens is the day language begins to die out. At least, that is my opinion, not necessarily factual.

Kim said...

Leah, but when you say someone is racist, that is also an adjective, and you never say racistic. Doesn't make sense to me either!

J.J. said...

LOL, I have no idea...I was the kid who flunked those grammar tests in school. If anything, I think it is OK....just because we don't say that someone is racisitic or sexistic doesn't mean that we can't say audistic...but I am sure if some of my English teachers are reading this, they may be cringing.

I wonder about the official rules for making up words? Isthere such a committee that decides what goes into the English dictionary? We have seen some made up words gainularity then added to the dictionary later...so I guess we all can make up words if we want to and hope that they gain usage.

Joseph Pietro Riolo said...

People can create new words in any way they want to. But, usually, there are some common ways and general rules in creating new words such as using a root word and combine it with a prefix or suffix as long as the new word sounds right. I can create a new word called "antipancommunicativist" to describe a person who is against all forms of communication (anti means against, pan means all, ist means a person). But, whether it will enter a dictionary will depend on how often and how widespread it is used by people. The authorities for dictionaries usually are descriptive, meaning that they do not pass judgment on new words but only describe and record what people use in their communication. Very short-lived words usually do not appear in the dictionaries, for example.

In the domain of chemistry, there are specific rules for creating a name for a new molecule. In the domain of biology, there are specific rules for creating a name for a new species.

But, in France, it is entirely different. Over there, there is an organization called "L'Académie française" that has the authority on the French language including the new words. Google on the name of the organization to get more information about it.

Joseph Pietro Riolo

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.

J.J. said...

Thanks for that info, JPR.

Ann said...

Lol, audistic, sexistic, racistic.

Doesn't it seem a little overkill, when audist, sexist or racist is enough to describe a person's behavior?

There's enough squabble over what the a-word itself means.

And now there's this multiplication of the a-word, such as auditorization, lol.


Gary said...

wow, there are some heavy statements floating around the comment section of your blog. I can't say that I agree with everyone's opinion (OCDAC) but I respect the right to have one. But I love what anon wrote.

MB said...

I'm definitely on the audistic spectrum. ;)

Anonymous said...

Definately audistic of a bunch of hearies sitting around deciding whether or not a term devised by the deaf to describe hearing superiority is appropriate.

Miss Kat's Parents said...

No, it is either grammatically correct in English, or it isn't. Having a hearing loss shouold not exclude you from reading and writing English correctly. I'm sorry (for you) that you believe otherwise.