Em sexta-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2023 às 05:21:27 UTC-3, Mark escreveu:
Attackive makes more sense. When someone's running towards the goal with the ball, they're attacking, not offending. Attackive makes more sense than attacking too. You don't call Italy's style of play defending. And you don't call a defensive
midfielder a defending midfielder either. I think the correct terms are attackIVE and defensIVE.
Unsatisfied with combatting the status quo of world economics, intrepid Mark now launches an offensive (sorry, an attackive?) against the status quo of English language!
While defense and offense clearly stem from the same etymologic branch (
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=defense ,
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=offense , both Latin through Old French), attack comes from another branch from the same tree (
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=attack , Florentine Italian through French).
For the first two words, the suffix -ive seems tailor-made and fits like a glove. They seem to be made for each other.
But for the word attack, this suffix feels like Cinderella's shoe in an ugly stepsister's foot.
It doesn't work in Portuguese either. We don't have the word "ataquivo" and I haven't even heard someone try even for a joke.
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)