![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conulyand pointed out that it was directed by somebody from Quebec, which is (apparently) unsurprising, as it seemed Quebecish. That's my word, not theirs, and that's why I am posting, because as soon as the word "Quebecish" popped into my head so did "Quebecy". And, for that matter, so did "It's a very Quebec sort of episode", which is a different way to form the same adjective.
Which left me wondering how, exactly, English speakers know which formation to pick when neologizing. This is not a question you can simply answer, unfortunately, because whatever you think you're doing, you're bound to be wrong when you try to explain it.
Still, I'll take everybody's wild guesses and speculation, just for kicks.
Which left me wondering how, exactly, English speakers know which formation to pick when neologizing. This is not a question you can simply answer, unfortunately, because whatever you think you're doing, you're bound to be wrong when you try to explain it.
Still, I'll take everybody's wild guesses and speculation, just for kicks.
no subject
Date: 2025-03-02 08:10 pm (UTC)hmm
I think maybe for me. -y might mark a closer affinity than -ish? Like I might use "-ish" to mean either "characteristic of" or "alike" but with "-y" I would more likely mean "characteristic of". Like -ish is slightly more about comparison and -y about identity.
She's very conductorish. (She is very much like a conductor.)
She's very conductory. (She, a conductor, exhibits behaviour characteristic of the role.)