random linguisticky question:

[fox]

why are practicioners of (or students in) some fields ending in -ology described as whatever-ologists, while others are described as whatever-ologians?  (in fact, besides 'theologian', are there other -logians?  i can't think of any off the top of my head ...)

Comments

[axiom_of_stripe]

m-w.com claims that theologian is the only logian they know. :)

[foulds.livejournal.com]

-ologian / -ologist is from the Greek, of course, and, as far as I can see, there is no Greek reason for the difference. Just saying. Not helpful, but meh.

[resonant8.livejournal.com]

I posed this question to the spouse, and these are the conclusions we came to.

1. If you ever wanted to insult an anthropologist, you could do it by calling her an anthropologian.

2. By the same logic, practitioners of so-called Creation Science are biologians.

3. Why aren't theologians called theologists? The spouse answers with this joke:

A dog goes to the telegraph office, takes a form, and writes:

Arf arf arf
Arf arf arf
Arf arf arf

The clerk says, "It's a flat rate for ten words or less, so you could add another 'arf.' "

The dog says, "But that would be silly."

[osymandias.livejournal.com]

That is a truly excellent joke.

Erm... I have no answer to the question actually posed.

[datlowen.livejournal.com]

Could be that it's merely a distinction without a difference--that the -ologian at the end of theo- has been there so long that they simply left it (after all, of all the -ologies that are still considered serious, theology is by far the oldest). But if I had to quess I would think it had something to do with the idea that you don't really study God so much as contemplate him, and that the difference in the word used is an attempt to make that distinction.

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

But then why is it "astrologer" and not "astrologist" (leaving aside the question of the legitimacy of the whole idea)?

Could it be because the English language is totally fucked up?