Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1908-08-04

ton of some rule land you say that
you found that they had adopted "Ari-
conan"
You should then, it seems to me,
have found some compelling rule to
authorize the change by substituting
"Arfzonian' for the accepted form of
I"Arizonanp
1t appeals to me with little force
that in some other states the form
I''Arizonian" was used-the right to de-
termine that question was and is with
the "Arizonans" themselves.
But the rule that you have deduced
fails you, for you have improperly ap-
lplied it. You have attempted first to
tdeduce a rule, of which there are many
instances as applied to the formation
of the principal noun and then attempt
to make it applicable to the formation
tof the adiectivaI noun.
| Space and time are too limited to
elaborate this but l will take your own
illustrations.
| 1t IS a general rule that the suffix
used to form the derivative adjectival
noun from proper names, shall be eth
Ier taken from the same language di-'
Irectly, or assimilated by analogy to the
same language, as that in which the
noun is formed or to which it bears
analogy.
The precise formation of course of
ten yields to euphonious notions. We
find that 'ia'' is peculiarly an English
Latin termination of names of countries
and states-and so we have Georgia,
Virginia. Asia, Pennsylvania. Califor-
fafn otto a. ~
of which are purely Latin. as, distin-
guished from pure english examinations
of other forms. Now it does happen
that many of these forms ending in ia
preceded h. a liquid consonant-but
You will observe / am speaking of the
formation % TIE original noun and
not derived adtectival noun.
The transition from ia of the prin-
cipal noun to the ian" of the adjecti-
val noun is obviously so easy and ma
tural that the words you cite are ac-
counted for not under the rule that
you seek, but because of the English
Latin termination ia" of the principal
noun.
I do not suppose, that you would sug-
gest that because the noun China ends
i'm ina o. ma Cas Indiana or Carolina)
that the adiectival noun should be
Gilman" as the application Of your
rule would make it. or that Japan
would find its adjectival form in Jap
anian as your rule would require.
would say that they are not "Chinian"
land "Japanian" because the original
or principal noun is not latinized in
form.
VVa instead of C.I,ipf,, Tonariap
Berlinian, etc. etc, say, wholly dis
regarding the rule dcduced by you,
japanese, Chinese, Berlinese etc, etc.
And Vienna becomes Viennese, not
withstanding its termination ma"
The suffix here believe is
an old French form and
suppose we have this ending to these
adjectival nouns because they came
through French sources. But l might
multiply instances to show that ian"
is not added because Of the final Ii
quid consonant terminal of the Origi-
nal noun. but that it is very often, Oft
en- enough to give it the effect Of a rule,
added to nouns that have the latinized
termination ia" of which | might cite
hundreds of instances
You have cited three instances of
the original noun ending in ma to es-
tablish your rule Of. that ian is to be
added to the original to form the ad-
jectival. Every one of your instances
is an exception to the rule that the
latinized terminal of the noun Of states
and places terminates in ia but proves
my statement that ian" is used to form
the adjectival noun when the original
has been latinlzed
Take Indiana. The original root is
Ind, the Anglicized Latin form is India;
the derivative adjectival noun is In
dian, following the rule as ] have stat
ed IT, With latinized original and
derivative we have formed still anoth-
er name b. adding a final a, making
the name applied to that state, Ind
iana-having first a Latin terminated
original to which two latinized suffiX-
es ara added. As l have said it is the
habit to add 'fan" to the noun that
has the english-latinized form and
hence you have Indianian-not because
it has a liquid final consonant.
SO with Carolina-that is purely a
latinized english form, and takes the
latinized suffix ian" for that reason,
and not because it has the final liquid
as you suggest. And so
with Louisianian.
These three cases you cite 10 prove |
that the noun ending in a liquid con-
sonant takes the suffix in the form |
"ian7-they prove only that they being |
latinized. take the latinized form of !
suffix. which as | have shown is ian"
Alabama is the only Instance that |
you cite that cannot be accounted for |
under the rule that l have suggested |
that tan is simply a latinized suffiX |
applied without regard to the liquid |
| dO2't ATTEMPT to account for Ala
bamian except on the score that the |
Alabamians thought that form more |
or for any other reason
preferred it.
AS | say you have cited but one in
stance in which the IAN is added to /
a proper name that ends in a liquid |
followed by a or e. As
against that one instance / will cite |
you several to the contrary. Guata- |
mala has Guatamalan for its adjec- |
tfval Notwithstanding your |
rule of final liquid consOnant. So with
Panama, which comes |
Panaman; Montana, which becomes
Montanan, Chile, which you cite fol- |