tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8290973459084131413.post8648473556740625500..comments2024-03-23T06:42:28.774+08:00Comments on the view from fanling: animal adjectivesDennis Hodgsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09409579380626581592noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8290973459084131413.post-89997611710990143432016-01-18T17:35:56.983+08:002016-01-18T17:35:56.983+08:00Actually Peter, although the –ian suffix isn’t use...Actually Peter, although the <i>–ian</i> suffix isn’t used for individual animals, we do have <i>reptilian</i>, <i>mammalian</i> and <i>avian</i> for generic classes of animal.<br />Dennis Hodgsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09409579380626581592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8290973459084131413.post-13100669482663739482016-01-18T16:16:08.539+08:002016-01-18T16:16:08.539+08:00Another suffix is "-ian", which I've...Another suffix is "-ian", which I've heard used satirically on names, though not on animals: e.g. an essayist described a feast as having "more than Rasputinian profusion", and a TV pundit dismissed a government policy as "of quite Baldrickian cunning" Peter G. Shilstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14738298407725174339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8290973459084131413.post-36863123009678907922016-01-18T00:12:47.346+08:002016-01-18T00:12:47.346+08:00Trust you to bring it up Peter. I deliberately avo...Trust you to bring it up Peter. I deliberately avoided any reference to horsey women to avoid causing offence!<br />Dennis Hodgsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09409579380626581592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8290973459084131413.post-77483463346590822262016-01-17T21:07:10.901+08:002016-01-17T21:07:10.901+08:00Interesting. A horsey woman could be a dog, and if...Interesting. A horsey woman could be a dog, and if underhand, also a snake!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17224207132332015908noreply@blogger.com