> Is there a rule to predict whether an adjective takes the form -ical (as
> in political, hypothetical), rather than -ic (as in catalytic, systematic)?
>
> Paul Burke
No. There are pairs, like "politic"/"political",
"historic"/"historical", where the meanings differ. There are also
pairs, like "ironic"/"ironical", "problematic"/"problematical", where
it does not. There is a suggestion that -ic is more American and
-ical more British. Often, a form in -ical correlates with a word in
-ic (music <-> musical; topic <-> topical), whereas a form in -ic
correlates with a word in -y (economy <-> economic; comedy <->
comedic). Words in -ics tend towards -ical (ethics <-> ethical;
statistics <-> statistical) unless -ic arose first (acoustic ->
acoustics; phonetic -> phonetics). Historically/etymologically there
has been crossover between forms, aided by the common form of the
adverb in -ically.
Giles Todd - 14 Apr 2005 01:25 GMT
> No. There are pairs, like "politic"/"political",
> "historic"/"historical", where the meanings differ. There are also
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> has been crossover between forms, aided by the common form of the
> adverb in -ically.
And then there are times when an economy of words apparently demands
that one become economical with the truth.
Giles
Danny Collman - 16 Apr 2005 18:06 GMT
>> No. There are pairs, like "politic"/"political",
>> "historic"/"historical", where the meanings differ. There are also
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>Giles
I'd be fascinated to know the meaning of this highly cryptic(al)
response.

Signature
Danny Collman
Giles Todd - 17 Apr 2005 03:23 GMT
> I'd be fascinated to know the meaning of this highly cryptic(al)
> response.
Just a counter-example for the ones given in Sceptic-Al's post. I do
realize that he was not laying down hard and fast rules.
Giles