for cyrus and brucez

[brad]

discuss 'global governance'.

cyrus wins on 'communist country' since thats so common you hear it all the time, as well as 'terrorist state'.

brucez gets half credit as i hear 'terrorist threat' but when i think about it theres something wrong there /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[brad]

also the word 'globalist'.

the new law furthers a globalist policy.

the new law furthers a globalistic policy.

i think the second one is incorrect. i think so because things like 'globalism' are a kind of a single mindset from which policies flow. the second one kind of implies that there are many kinds of globalism or something, if you know what i mean.

very poor explanation by me and i think maybe directly parallel to communism, but maybe not terrorism (as terrorism can spring from many sources for many different reasons maybe?)

[BruceZ]

I'll take full credit because I told you that 'communist' can be used as an adjective, so 'communtist country' is fine. See latest posts. You hear 'terrorist state' sometimes. Terrorist is a noun. It is not impossible to juxtapose two nouns like this. For example, 'bowling ball bag'. To that end, I suppose you can even make up something like 'terrorist threat', but terrorist is a noun here. The legal term is 'terroristic threat', which is what we were discussing.

Cyrus' claims were that a) there is no such word as 'terroristic', and b) the word 'terrorist' and 'terroristic' are the same. These claims were made at different times, hence the contradiction. We have conclusively proven both of these statements false, which normally would end the matter. 'Terroristic' is an adjective, and 'terrorist' is a noun. Both are words. 'Terroristic threat' is a legal term; 'terrorist threat' is not.

Someone with an unabridged and preferably new dictionary please check if 'terrorist' can ever be an adjective instead of 'terroristic'. My dictonary does not even have the word 'globalism', or 'globalistic'. Still, it is improbable that the usage of 'terrorist' would be different even in an unabridged dictionary.

[brad]

my point is something like it sounds like

terrorist threat is a threat done to carry out terrorism

whereas terroristic threat would be something like a threat containing elements of terrorism or a threat with overtures of terrorism or something like that.

actually i would think an older dictionary would be preferable though as long as its a really big one.

so actually youre right terroristic is a word but im pretty sure its relatively new in usage and awkward.

[brad]

actually dictionary.com lists 'terrorist' as both a noun and adj.

[brad]

actually whether terroristic is a 'bona fide' word can be settled very quickly.

did it have any common usage in any type of literature? (say between 1800-1950, because if it came into use after 1950 it wont be a word yet for older people, heh)

[BruceZ]

so actually youre right terroristic is a word but im pretty sure its relatively new in usage and awkward.

It is absolutely not new. My dictionary is dated 1969, and it is big. I would lay you long odds that you could find dictionaries 50-100 years old with this word in it. BTW, 'terrorist' is a much more general term than that used to describe the guys with scarves over their heads. We have probably all been terrorists at one time or another.

[BruceZ]

OK, good input about dictionary.com. I'd still like to see an authoritative source, like Webster's unabridged. Language changes as a result of usage and misusage too. At any rate, the term used in the legal literature is 'terroristic threat', which is what we were originally dicussing. It is something any of us can be charged with, nothing to do with the guys with scarves again.

[John Cole]

Bruce,

You won't find one dictionary that can be considered an authoritative source. Dictionaries are either descriptive--they list and define words--or procriptive--they list and define, but also tell you how a word should be used. Webster's Third falls into the descriptive category. In addition, since the proscriptive works, some dictionaries and usage works like Fowler's, often disagree, it's often difficult to judge how a word should be used.

For example, Mirriam-Webster's usage manual offers examples from writing that often conflict with those time-honored proscriptive "rules" that we learned in grammar school.

Keep in mind, too, that "terrorist" is both a noun and an adjective, but only becomes one or the other when it is placed in relation to other words. This sounds like common sense, but it has implications beyond simple common sense.

I also looked up "globalism" and "globalist"--both of which appear in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Although "globalist" is a noun according to this dictionary, I suspect, by analogy with "terrorist," it could be used as an adjective as well.

Finally, I don't have the OED at home, but on Monday, I'll find out when "terrorist" was first used.

John

PS. I think there may be a fine distinction between "terrorist threat" and "terroristic threat," and, certainly, they may not mean the same thing.

[BruceZ]

Thanks John. I see that Merriam-Webster online at webster.com also says 'terrorist' can be a noun or an adjective, and it also lists 'terroristic' as an adjective. My 1969 American Heritage Dictonary only lists 'terroristic' as the adjective. I would think that 'terrorist' cannot be used as an adjective in all places that 'terroristic' could be used. For example, "he exhibits terroristic behavior" seems better than "he exhibits terrorist behavior". Certainly "he is terrorist" doesn't seem right at all, but "he is terroristic" sounds fine. You wouldn't say someone's behavior is sadist, you would say it is sadistic.

[John Cole]

Bruce,

Mow you're getting into a trickier area since you're using the linking verb "is." The word that follows the linking verb is also called a complement, and it can either be a noun or adjective complement. Most adjectives are placed in front of the noun, and that's the best spot for them. (An exception is many adjectives that begin with the letter "a," which often follow the linking verb. "The house is ablaze" is an example.)

As far as "sadist," well, "sadist" is only a noun, and "sadistic" is the correct adjective form, which, of course, explains why "He is sadist" sounds wrong--it is.

John

[BruceZ]

But a noun complement would normally require something before the noun like 'a', 'an', or 'the', wouldn't it? What would be an example where it would not?

OK, I've got one, "He is king".

[Cyrus]

Cyrus' claims were that a) there is no such word as 'terroristic', and b) the word 'terrorist' and 'terroristic' are the same. These claims were made at different times, hence the contradiction.

I tried to convene the extreme ugliness of the word "terroristic". Forgive me for any exaggeration. The term "terroristic", at best, could convey a shade of "terrorist" (like when something is not completely so).

I may have fallen for the same proclamation as when kangaroos were first sighted.

PS : I was reading yesterday a text coming out of the European Commission, an instrument of the EU, and it had the term "comitology procedure". They probably meant the process of committees as already established, etc. Ugh.

[brad]

'whereas terroristic threat would be something like a threat containing elements of terrorism or a threat with overtures of terrorism or something like that.'

'The term "terroristic", at best, could convey a shade of "terrorist" (like when something is not completely so). '

exactly what i was gonna say except i lost my train of thought and so wrote 'overtures of terrorism'.

much like someone can act sadistic without actually being a sadist.