The country of which I am a citizen is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain is the largest of the British Isles and is home to England, Scotland and Wales. I was born in England and, apart from several extended periods abroad, have lived my life in England. That makes me ethnically English and politically British. Although Great Britain is a geographical term, British describes nationals of the whole of the United Kingdom and Britain is sometimes used to mean the United Kingdom.
Things are often perceived differently abroad, and even by some of the British themselves. The whole political entity is frequently referred to as England, even though England is only a part of it. That doesn’t usually bother the English, but it might bother the Welsh, the Scots and the Northern Irish.
The best policy is to call the country the United Kingdom or, less formally, Britain. Call the people British, unless you know them to be English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish or something else.
EDIT:
The title ‘The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’ raises an interesting linguistic, as well as political, point. Syntactically, it’s ambiguous. Is it ‘(The United Kingdom) of (Great Britain and Northern Ireland’) or is it ‘(The United Kingdom of Great Britain) and (Northern Ireland)’?
In ‘The Isles: A History’, Norman Davies traces the various titles by which the isles have been known. From 1660 to 1707 it was ‘The Kingdom of England and Wales’. The union with Scotland in 1707 gave us ‘The united Kingdom of Great Britain’. Meanwhile, there was a Kingdom of Ireland from 1660 to 1800. In 1801, Ireland was included in ‘The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland’. That state of affairs lasted until 1922 when Ireland divided, allowing the six northern Irish counties to become part of ‘The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’.
The original ‘united kingdom’ of 1707 was so called because it united England (with Wales) and Scotland. The addition of ‘Ireland’ in 1801 and of ‘Northern Ireland’ in 1922 can therefore be seen as mere accretions to an already united kingdom. However, the grammatical ambiguity allows the alternative interpretation of all components of the State being united under a single crown. A good example, perhaps, of Engli-, sorry, British, compromise.
Courtesy of @DanBron, here's what it says in Word Formation in English,
with interpolated translations:
-ify
This suffix attaches to three kinds of base word:
1. monosyllabic words
2. words stressed on the final syllable
3. words stressed on the next-to-last syllable that end in unstressed /i/
Neologisms usually do not show stress shift, but some older forms do
(húmid ~ humídify, sólid, solídify).
Translation: there are restrictions on what kind of words -ify can go on. They have to sound right. Examples of each kind of word root with -ify:
- pacify, crucify, gentrify (two Latin words and a neologism, all from monosyllabic roots)
- solemnify, malignify, machinify (likewise 2 Latin, one neo; but these are rarer)
- shabbify, rubify, calcify (ditto)
These restrictions have the effect that -ify is in (almost) complementary distribution with the suffix -ize.
Translation: the set of roots that can take -ify and the set of roots that can take -ize are (almost) disjoint sets. There is one intersection, which will be described next.
The only, but systematic, exception to the complementarity of -ize/-ify can be observed with (2), the base words in /i/, which take -ify with loss of the final /i/ (as in Nazify /'natsəfai/), or take -ize with no accompanying segmental changes apart from optional glide insertion (as in Nazi-ize /'natsi(y)aiz/).
Translation: you can do it either way with words stressed on the next-to-last syllable that end in unstressed /i/. But they're the only ones.
Semantically, -ify shows the same range of meanings as -ize and the two suffixes could therefore be considered phonologically conditioned allomorphs.
Translation: -ify and -ize can be considered "the same morpheme", just like a and an.
-ize
Both -ize and -ify are polysemous suffixes, which express a whole range of related concepts such as locative, provisional, causative/factitive, resultative, inchoative, performative, similative.
Translation: there are a lot of kinds of meaning (poly-semous < Gk 'many meanings') for the suffix. These types have technical names. Examples follow (I've changed a few old-fashioned terms to protect the innocent).
Locatives are paraphrased as 'put into X
, as in computerize, hospitalize, tubify.
- Patinaize, fluoridize, youthify are provisional ('provide with X
'),
- randomize, functionalize, humidify are causative ('make (more) X
'),
- carbonize, itemize, trustify, and nazify are resultative ('make into X
'),
- aerosolize and mucify are inchoative ('become X
'),
- anthropologize and speechify are performative ('perform X
')
- cannibalize and vampirize can be analyzed as similitive ('act like X
').
The suffix -ize attaches primarily to roots ending in an unstressed syllable and the resulting derivatives show rather complex patterns of base allormorphy.
Translation: A lot of funny things happen to the roots when adding -ize. Examples follow.
For example, bases are systematically truncated (i.e, they lose the rime of the final syllable) if they are vowel-final and end in two unstressed syllables (truncated memory ~ memorize vs untruncated consonant-final hospital ~ hospitalize). Furthermore, polysyllabic derivatives in -ize are not allowed to have identical onsets in the last two syllables, if these are unstressed. In the pertinent cases truncation is used as a repair strategy, as in feminine ~ feminize and emphasis ~ emphasize.
Translation: most of the non-neologisms were formed in Latin, under Latin phonological and morphological rules, which don't apply to English. So lots of the roots are not really English words, but rather are related to English words, and it gets very complicated trying to account for all the differences between the roots and the words.
This is one example of how complex even a teensy-weensy part of English grammar can get.
And this isn't even syntax.
Best Answer
Short version:
According to my sources, those suffixes share roughly the same set of meanings. The choice seems to be motivated phonologically and/or etymologically.
-ify attaches to:
It differs from -ize in that it may be used derogatorily in some cases, as in preachify, Frenchify, etc. Like -ate, it is a Latinate suffix, and formations outside the neo-classical lexicon are “often facetious or pejorative” (via A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language). According to corpus findings in Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, the suffix -ify is the least frequently occurring one out of the three verbifying suffixes with which we are concerned here (-ize, -ate, and -ify). The frequency orders of these suffixes between registers (academic, conversational, fiction, etc) are the same. Meanings (for a more elaborate list of meanings, see -ize):
-ificate is either back-formation of -ification or the combination of -ify and -ate, the latter of which is likely to be added to words of Latin origin or modelled on Latin word-formation. It's not a suffix in its own right. -Ate is primarily attached to noun bases, but in rare cases, it can be attached to verb bases as well, and, according to A Comprehensive Grammar, it is especially productive in scientific English (chlorinate, delaminate, etc).
-ize is the most popular suffix for verb-formation in Present-day English (particularly common in academic prose), which makes mostly intransitive verbs, and which can be used to produce words with the following set of meanings:
It attaches primarily to bases ending in an unstressed syllable. Sometimes, -ize is interchangeable with -ify, though distributed across different styles (syllabize — syllabify). Different specialized meanings for the same base is also possible: liquidize — liquidate — liquefy.
From the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English:
Some (long) quotations of sources used:
As @Billare noted, there is lots of superfluous information for the sake of producing those quotes verbatim without distorting whatever the authors intended to convey. You may not want to read this all.
Ingo Plag, Word-Formation in English:
-ificate does not seem to me a genuine suffix in its own right, so I am quoting what that book has to say about (related) -ion instead. It doesn't say anything about -ificate or any possible version thereof that comes to mind. It's either back-formation of -ication or -ify + -ate.
The Oxford English Dictionary:
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language: