Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word . In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word , but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word you have here. The definition of the word will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
@Guldrelokk: I would wager there are words in -логия(-logija) without the corresponding agentive nouns in -лог(-log); also, it is certainly a matter of opinion whether педиатри́я(pediatríja) is synchronically formed from педиа́тр(pediátr) or vice-versa, and in general I am loath to make synchronic analyses that disagree with the diachronic analysis unless there's a good reason to. Benwing2 (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: There are no such words, and it is not at all a matter of option. педиатрия(pediatrija) is a derivative of педиатр(pediatr) and not vice versa, as follows from the word structure. I do not think you can find such an account anywhere. Guldrelokk (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
IMO, that is not probative, any more than claiming we can analyze -logy into -log + -y because we can similarly form adjectives in -logical in English. Benwing2 (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I do not understand English morphology very well. This is a perfectly good reason to analyse -логия into -лог-ия, because -логический is not derivable from -логия. Stems in -лог form clusters of derivatives. Thus all descriptions treat -логия as -лог-ия. Likewise, химия(ximija) doesn’t have a corresponding *хим(*xim), but there are other words from the same stem, like химический(ximičeskij), and they show that -ия(-ija) is a suffix here, as Wiktionary agrees. Guldrelokk (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
The basic morphological principles are the same across languages. Your example of химия is a good one; this is properly analyzed as follows:
In other words, хими́ческий is formed by adding -и́ческий directly onto хи́мия, and the rules of derivation for -и́ческий say that if added to words ending in -ия, that suffix is deleted. Another similar example is гармони́ческий = гармо́н(ия) + -и́ческий. Given that there's no such word as *хим or гармо́н, the analysis хим + -и́ческий or гармо́н + -и́ческий is impossible (although such an analysis does apply to e.g. ритми́ческий = ритм + -и́ческий and цилиндри́ческий = цили́ндр + -и́ческий). This similarly means that гармо́ния should not be analyzed as *гармо́н + -ия; rather, гармо́ния is probably a direct borrowing from (Old?) French harmonie or Latin harmonia (or perhaps Ancient Greekἁρμονία(harmonía)), with the form of the word influenced by the existing suffix -ия(-ija), and all words with the stem гармон- in them are either formed from гармо́ния or are themselves direct borrowings of foreign words (e.g. гармони́ровать(garmonírovatʹ) is probably a direct borrowing of Germanharmonieren + -овать, alternatively analyzable synchronically as гармо́н(ия) + -и́ровать). This means that there's no problem analyzing words in -логи́ческий as something-лог(ия) + -ический, and logically this makes sense because e.g. генеалоги́ческий "genealogical" means "related to генеало́гия (genealogy)" and not "*related to генеало́г (genealogists)". This should be made clearer in English where there's no such word as "*genealog" and "genealogical" is necessarily "genealog(y) + -ical", but the same principles can and do apply in Russian. Benwing2 (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Exactly because -ия gets deleted it is a suffix. Гармония is the motivating word for гармонический, but they are not formed from each other: both suffixes can be widely seen elsewhere, and here they share a common stem, гармон-. So do гаплолог-ия and гаплолог-ический. Гармония - гармонический and гаплология - гаплологический are in the same relation, so there is no need to posit -логия as dictinct from -лог-ия. There is a good reason nobody does that.
As for what was directly borrowed and what was not, that doesn’t matter. Native speakers have no idea: they only have idea about synchronic relations. Guldrelokk (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Highly elaborated dictionaries by both Тихонов and Ефремова divide -логия into -лог-ия. I do not see a reason to contradict these good sources as well as the whole of native grammar tradition. Guldrelokk (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
The Czech analogue is -logie. I searched for sources and found two that rank cs:-logie as a suffixoid, so something a bit like suffix but not entirely like it. Personally I find Ben Wing's analysis convincing, and I find it preferable to keep Russian -логия. A usage note could be added stating that some sources analyze this as a composition of -лог and -ия. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
There is a consensus for non-deletion now. I think Wiktionary will eventually have to decide whether it states morphological relations in terms of words (then there is no -логия in селенология just like no -ия in гармония per Benwing) or stems (then there is certainly a stem селенолог- from which both селенолог-и-я and селенолог-ическ-ий are derived stems), but it’s certainly not up to me. Guldrelokk (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
