| Re: partyer, partier ??? |
Vispa |
| Richard Polhill (richard.news@polhill.vispa.invalid) |
2007/01/04 01:52 |
Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 08:52:32 +0000
From: Richard Polhill <richard.news@polhill.vispa.invalid>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Thunderbird/1.0.2 Mnenhy/0.7.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.languages.english
Subject: Re: partyer, partier ???
References: <4599905b$0$288$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <5b4f0$459b686b$3e18e6cb$20436@news.vispa.com> <5026hdF1e61krU1@mid.individual.net>
In-Reply-To: <5026hdF1e61krU1@mid.individual.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <22b42$459cbc76$3e18e6cb$22374@news.vispa.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@vispa.net
Organization: Vispa
Lines: 46
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.24.230.203 (62.24.230.203)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 08:36:06 +0000
X-Trace: 22b42459cbc769bbd436e22374
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.languages.english:1382
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> Richard Polhill schrieb:
>> Simon wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> Being that time of year I have a festive question.
>>> Both the words partyer and partier are listed by dictionary.com:
>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/partier
>>>
>>> However I haven't found either of these two words in any other
>>> on-line dictionary.
>>>
>>> Does anybody know if they are american english and not british english?
>>>
>>> Happy New Year,
>>> Simon.
>>>
>> Hmm not sure the word exists as such but can legally be built by
>> adding -er suffix to party. Partier cannot possibly be correct, however.
>>
> Both forms are contasined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which is
> one of the authoritative dictionaries of american English, but I don't
> doubt that the words also appear in then Oxford English Dictionary.
>
> Indeed "partier" is probably the more regular form since when you add
> the suffix "-er" to a word ending in "-y" after a consonant the "-y" is
> usually changed into an "-i-", e.g. "carry" -> "carrier", "happy" ->
> "happier", although tehre are some exceptions where both forms are
> acceptable, e.g. "drier" and "dryer" are both acceptable (at least as
> nouns, only the former is acceptable as the comparative form of the
> adjective "dry").
>
Oxford regards 'dryer' as the preferred form for 'something which dries' but
lists 'drier' as an alternative whereas the superlative sense 'more dry' can
only be 'drier'.
This is exactly the model for preferring 'partyer' to 'partier' as an
adjective 'party' is implied by the second spelling. Imagine if you will as
sentence involving the compound noun 'party wall' - close in meaning to the
original French root 'partie': a share - perhaps it could become acceptable to
describe a one wall as 'partier' than another. ;-) I know it sounds awful as
there is no adjective 'party', but it would conform to normal English
evolution to extend an existing usage this way.
If this were true then using the '-er' suffix (meaning 'one who ...' not the
superlative sense) would retain some distinction of meaning.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|
|