Why does "adopt" give "adoption" but "adapt" gives "adaptation"?

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/40390/word-formation-with-the-nominal-suffix-tion-when-and-why-do-we-insert-an-a

adaption is also a word used often in biology. Perhaps its an archaic form

Cause if you said adoptation, nobody would know what hell you were taling about.

You should realize that most of these words originated in French. So the rules or reasons of the extra syllable is probably their fault too..

Ceili is correct, I think. The words are of Norman French origin, hence the conversion from verb to noun follows a french form. And in some cases, of course, to anglicize the plural could result in needless confusion and/or more difficult pronunciation.

It's from Latin - from the verbs adoptare respectively adaptare.
The Latin nouns are adoptio resp. adaptatio.




When you look where these words originally come from, you might find the clue ...

yup.
As we stole, erm, acquired words from other languages, their native endings tried to come along with them. The Norman French had lots of endings and genders to boot, Frisian not so much, but some; much thanks to the Danes and the Norse for just bringing us rough, uncut words we could shove into Olde English without any (or many) of the unnecessary syllables hanging around from Latin, French and Spanish.

But a great deal of thanks has to be given to the French for conquering and lording over England after 1066. While everything in government went on in French, out in the fields and meadows English flourished as a language than changed and merged and re-changed, emerging as Middle English once the Normans got bored and left after about 150 years.

English is still hard to learn, but put a conjugation of a verb in French, Polish or Russian next to the same one in English and you'll see what I mean.

Joe(or just read the instructions on how to use your i-Phone)Nation

Old English--Anglo Saxon--itself adds to the confusion. So, for example, Old English used cases, which are no longer used in the language, but which still affect words. So, we say forgot, and forgotten. The English get sniffy and say "got" rather than gotten, but they also say forgotten. Also, the -en ending was a plural form in Old English. One infant is a a child, several are children; one male sibling is a brother, more than one are bretheren.

What gets even more bizarre are the Old English dialects. Most Anglos Saxons said eyern to mean the product of a hen, and had no idea what the people of Essex and Kent were on about when they said egge. However, Essex and Kent prevailed on that one, because they supplied thousands of eyernen to London every day--lots of eggen.

To most Anglo Saxons, eye meant island. So, Chalk Island--cealc eye--becomes Chelsea. An island at the mouth of a tributary of the river Thames was owned by a man named Badrig or Badrich, and it was called Badrices eye, Bradrig's island. Now it's called Battersea.

Man, i love this language.

Me too.
Remind me to look up some the history about "Am I not.?.." and "I am not" and "Amn't I?"

Cheers
Joe(blatterskill)Nation

And, Americans are fond of making words longer, or of using a long word when a shorter word will adequately serve.

No offence, of course. And the above-listed words do not seem (from memory) to fall into that category. Just thought I would mention it.

I happen to agree with that. But why mention it when it's off-topic? This thread isn't about American vs British idiosyncracies; it's about the formation of nouns out of verbs and the inconsistencies in this practice.

I mention it because it interests me.
(we have transport, you have transportation. We have anaesthetists, you have anesthologists, etc)

But I humbly stand corrected.