Does anyone else find the addition of superfluous suffixes to otherwise perfectly adequate descriptors somewhat puzzling and a bit ridiculous?
.
What in the world am I talking about? Right?
.
I'm talking about the needless addition of suffixes on descriptors, often found in technical writing, almost as if someone was doing a very poor job at trying to sound more impressively technical.
.
Examples:
.
Adding '-al' to arrive at a something that sounds custom created for Daffy Duck to sputter....'Dynamical'.
'Dynamic' is concise and complete. Adding '-al' provides no additional information about what it describes. At times itt does suggest (probably unreliable) information about the writer wielding the word.
.
'Acoustical'? Really? Why? 'Acoustic' already says all that without puffing it up with additional letters. I'm not trying to jump on anyone here, though I did just see this in a post. I realize most people pick up these gilded lilies hearing others use the terms without putting much thought into it.
.
'Functionality'? Seriously, this one gets to me every time. Just stop at 'Function'. Going any further serves none.
.
'Aerodynamical'....
.
Anyone else notice this and find it strange?
.
Let me know others you have run across.....
.
....or if you feel the suffixes do do indeed add meaningfully to the description being provided, please let me know.
.
(I was leaning towards posting this in 'Material Science' since it deals with Creep, but ultimately decided the problem is more accurately a QC/QA topic.)
Good Answers:
"Almost" Good Answers: