{"id":8040,"date":"2014-04-06T05:42:06","date_gmt":"2014-04-06T05:42:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2014\/04\/06\/hylemorphic-or-hylomorphic\/"},"modified":"2014-04-06T05:42:06","modified_gmt":"2014-04-06T05:42:06","slug":"hylemorphic-or-hylomorphic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2014\/04\/06\/hylemorphic-or-hylomorphic\/","title":{"rendered":"‘Hylemorphic’ or ‘Hylomorphic’?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is a question for those of you  who champion the linguistic innovation, 'hylemorphic.'  Will you also write 'morphelogical' and 'morphelogy'?  If not, why not?<\/span><\/p>\n

'Morphology' is superior to 'morphelogy' in point of euphony.  For the same reason, 'hylomorphic' is superior to 'hylemorphic.'<\/span><\/p>\n

But even if you disagree with my last point, you still have to explain why you don't apply your principle consistently.<\/span><\/p>\n

Why don't you write and say 'morphelogy,' 'epistemelogy,' 'gelogy' (instead of 'geology'), etc.?<\/span><\/p>\n

We linguistic conservatives are not opposed to change, but we are opposed to unnecessary changes.  "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."<\/span><\/p>\n

Addendum<\/strong> (8 April 2014)<\/span><\/p>\n

Patrick Toner writes:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Loved your post on the spelling of hylemorphism.  I must disagree on the charge that the 'e' spelling is a novelty.  I say this without any firsthand evidence.  But Gideon Manning has a paper that covers the appearance of the term.  According to him it showed up in English in 1888.  By 1907, at least, there is an 'e' spelling of the term, in the translation of some scholastic volume into English.  (DeWulf, maybe?)  So both spellings go back almost all the way to the origin of the term in English.  Manning himself uses the o spelling, but claims both are legitimate.<\/span> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I make or imply essentially three claims in my post.  The first is that the use of 'hylemorphism' is an innovation.  I now see thanks to Toner that this claim is mistaken.  So I withdraw it.  The second claim is that 'hylomorphism' is superior to 'hylemorphism' in point of eupohony.  I stick by this claim, though I admit it is somewhat subjective: one man's euphony is, if not another man's cacophany, then at least the other's non-euphony.  The third claim is that the fans of 'hylemorphism' and cognates do not apply their principle consistently.  For as far as I know they do not go on to say and write 'epistemelogy,' etc.  <\/span><\/p>\n

Here is a fourth point.  Although the use of 'hylemorphism' and cognates is not wrong, and is not an absolute<\/em> innovation (as Manning<\/a> documents), it does diverge from the more common use at the present time.  So what is the point of this relative<\/em> innovation?  <\/span><\/p>\n

Am I missing something?<\/span><\/p>\n

\nRelated articles<\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>E. J. Lowe on the Distinction Between Constituent and Relational Ontology<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>On Primary Substances and Accidental Unities<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here is a question for those of you  who champion the linguistic innovation, 'hylemorphic.'  Will you also write 'morphelogical' and 'morphelogy'?  If not, why not? 'Morphology' is superior to 'morphelogy' in point of euphony.  For the same reason, 'hylomorphic' is superior to 'hylemorphic.' But even if you disagree with my last point, you still have … Continue reading “‘Hylemorphic’ or ‘Hylomorphic’?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8040","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-hylomorphism","category-language-matters"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8040","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8040"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8040\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8040"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8040"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8040"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}