The article's example of "bilingual" as a fake root word is misleading since it's actually a legitimate compound word from "bi-" (two) and "lingual" (language), whereas the real impostor "suburban" is more convincingly fabricated. I'm curious about the source material for these words - are they from a specific etymological database or just the author's own fabrication?
Actually, "bilingual" isn't a legitimate compound word either - it's a modern coinage that doesn't follow the Latin/Greek pattern the article is critiquing. The real issue is that "suburban" is indeed a genuine compound from "sub-" and "urbis" (city), while "bilingual" is just a recent construction that doesn't adhere to the etymological rules the article claims to be explaining.
I was surprised that the article didn't mention how these fake root words often get used in academic writing, which makes them particularly dangerous since readers might assume they're real etymological foundations when they're actually just made up. It would have been more helpful if the article had provided concrete examples of how these impostor roots have actually been misused in published research or educational materials.
I was surprised that "frivolous" wasn't included among the fake root words, since it's actually derived from "frivole" (meaning "frothy" or "light"), which makes it a real French borrowing that's been incorporated into English. The article seems to have missed that one, or perhaps it's so commonly used that it's no longer considered a fake root.
The article claims that "frivolity" and "irradiate" are derived from Latin roots, but that's actually wrong—the former comes from French and the latter from Latin but with Greek elements. It's frustrating when etymological information is so often misrepresented, making readers think they're learning about the origins of words when they're just getting misleading information.
The article's example of "bilingual" as a fake root word is misleading since it's actually a legitimate compound word from "bi-" (two) and "lingual" (language), whereas the real impostor "suburban" is more convincingly fabricated. I'm curious about the source material for these words - are they from a specific etymological database or just the author's own fabrication?
Actually, "bilingual" isn't a legitimate compound word either - it's a modern coinage that doesn't follow the Latin/Greek pattern the article is critiquing. The real issue is that "suburban" is indeed a genuine compound from "sub-" and "urbis" (city), while "bilingual" is just a recent construction that doesn't adhere to the etymological rules the article claims to be explaining.
I was surprised that the article didn't mention how these fake root words often get used in academic writing, which makes them particularly dangerous since readers might assume they're real etymological foundations when they're actually just made up. It would have been more helpful if the article had provided concrete examples of how these impostor roots have actually been misused in published research or educational materials.
I was surprised that "frivolous" wasn't included among the fake root words, since it's actually derived from "frivole" (meaning "frothy" or "light"), which makes it a real French borrowing that's been incorporated into English. The article seems to have missed that one, or perhaps it's so commonly used that it's no longer considered a fake root.
The article claims that "frivolity" and "irradiate" are derived from Latin roots, but that's actually wrong—the former comes from French and the latter from Latin but with Greek elements. It's frustrating when etymological information is so often misrepresented, making readers think they're learning about the origins of words when they're just getting misleading information.