![[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 08:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-03-02 09:04 pm (UTC)Not sure how many words this applies to, but people will absolutely use "Jew-ish" as a separate word, when they want to bring back the vibe of the acronym. Referring to something/someone that's Judaism-adjacent.
no subject
Date: 2025-03-03 09:16 pm (UTC)Also, I think the neutral definition may be the older one...? I don't know, I'll have to look that up.
no subject
Date: 2025-03-03 11:59 pm (UTC)