adjectivesic-icalmeaningsuffixesword-choice
Is there any substantive difference in the meanings of these two words? Is the latter considered a proper word at all?
If the answer to either of the above questions is yes, what are these words' differences in usage?
Similarly, "acoustic" versus "acoustical", etc.
The suffix -ic comes from Greek -ikos, while -ical is a combination of -ic and the French suffix -al. Originally, -al was suffixed to scientific nouns ending in -ics, e.g. mathematics - mathematical. Eventually, the -ical portion of those words was reanalyzed as being a single unit. This is what Marchand (1969) had to say about -ic vs. -ical at this time in their history:
There was, at the beginning, indiscriminate coexistence of two synonymous adjectives. But language does not like to have two words for one and the same notion, and competition was bound to come.
What Marchand is talking about is that these two redundant suffixes eventually settled into certain niches where they exist today (more on this later).
There exist many -ic/-ical "doublets" in English, where both forms of the word exist and are used regularly.
For example:
The words in common doublets have generally developed distinct meanings (or domains of use). For example, historical refers exclusively to things that happened in the past, while historic can refer to an event occurring at that very moment that will have a profound impact on history.
However, the differences in meanings between -ic and -ical words (in cases where both forms are used) cannot be generalized to a specific unique meaning that -ic or -ical itself contributes to the word.
That is to say, there is no general and consistent meaning that -ical uniquely contributes to historical, electrical, etc. Instead, each word as a whole just settles into its specific meaning.
According to a systematic productivity measure by Lindsay and Aronoff (2010), the more productive of the two suffixes is clearly -ic, which is favored by approximately an 8 to 1 ratio using this measure. So, you are much more likely to have an -ic form of a word, or to have that form be the more commonly used form.
Now, if -ic is clearly used more than -ical, then why do we have both of these suffixes in the language?
Well, -ical has managed to differentiate itself from -ic, but not by contributing a specific meaning to the words it attaches to. Instead, -ical has found a specific morphological domain in which it attaches very productively: stems that end with the morpheme -(o)log-. Examples:
There are nearly 500 stems in Webster's 2nd dictionary that end in -olog. Using the same measure of productivity, Lindsay & Aronoff found that within the domain of these stems, the -ical suffix was itself preferred by an 8 to 1 ratio over -ic. That is to say, when there is an -(o)log morpheme at the end of the word, then people heavily favor -ical.
The notion of one suffix being productive when attaching to a certain suffix is known as "potentiation", coined by Williams (1981). (Another example of potentiation is what we see with words ending in -able. In general, -ness is considered a more productive suffix than -ity, but in words ending in -able, -ity is strongly preferred.)
Bear in mind that these are tendencies; while there is a strong preference for one form over another in certain cases, that does not mean that it is a perfect split.
-ic and -ical do not differentiate themselves semantically; however, both forms of a word can exist if each one settles into a different meaning, or otherwise has a different domain of usage (for example, one formal and the other informal). The actual differences in meaning between two forms in a doublet are essentially arbitrary.
While -ic is much more common overall (and could be argued to be the "default"), -ical is strongly preferred in stems ending in -(o)log-. Again, this is a tendency that began somewhat arbitrarily during the development of the language, but because words ending in -olog form such a large and relatively uniform group, a subpattern was able to emerge and stabilize, even as -ical remains in the minority.
These words are related but might not refer to the same exact thing. For example if you check the Wikipedia entry for Authoritarianism you will find this entry:
Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority. It is opposed to individualism and democracy. In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political power is concentrated in a leader or leaders, typically unelected by the people, who possess exclusive, unaccountable, and arbitrary power. Authoritarianism differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under the government's control.
so immediately you see the distinction between authoritarianism vs. totalitarianism. If you now go to the Wikipedia entry for Totalitarianism you will find this entry:
Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the power of a single political person, faction, or class, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.Totalitarianism is usually characterized by the coincidence of authoritarianism (where ordinary citizens have less significant share in state decision-making) and ideology (a pervasive scheme of values promulgated by institutional means to direct most if not all aspects of public and of public and private life).
We see here that Totalitarianism is characterized by Authoritarianism AND ideology.
If we now check Despotism vs. Dictatorship we find that for Despotism is
a form of government in which a single entity, called the despot, rules with absolute power. That entity may be an individual, as in an autocracy, or it may be a group, as in an oligarchy. The word despotism means to "rule in the fashion of a despot" and should not be confused with "despot", an individual.
the key word here is "single entity" which can actually be an individual OR a group. Under dictatorship we find this entry:
A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator.
also we find the distinction between dictatorships and totalitarian rule (with reference to authoritarianism:
For some scholars, a dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed (similar to authoritarianism), while totalitarianism describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior of the people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power (where the power comes from) and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power (what is the government). In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's life) opposes pluralism (government allows multiple lifestyles and opinions). Though the definitions of the terms differ, they are related in reality as most of the dictatorship states tend to show totalitarian characteristics. When governments' power does not come from the people, their power is not limited and tend to expand their scope of power to control every aspect of people's life.
For autocracy we find this entry:
An autocracy is a form of government in which one person possesses unlimited power.1 An autocrat is a person (such as a monarch) ruling with unlimited authority.
a distinction is made between autocratic rule vs. miliatry dictatorships with some reference also to totalitarian rule:
Autocracy and totalitarianism are related concepts. Autocracy is defined by one individual having unlimited legislative and executive power, while totalitarianism extends to regulating every aspect of public and private life. Totalitarianism does not imply a single ruler, but extends to include absolute rule by any faction or class of elites who recognize no limit to their authority. Autocracy differs from military dictatorship, as these often take the form of "collective presidencies" such as the South American juntas. However, an autocracy may be totalitarian or be a military dictatorship.
I hope this helps! :)
Best Answer
There is no such English word as "scientifical." You might make an argument that "acoustic" has the same meaning as "acoustical," though. Ain't English great?