Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: alt.languages.english
Subject: Re: "separater" and "dictater" [was: Decline of the English language]
Organization: None
Message-ID: <s44mq09a9ipqeienthlqanrnfhtpjuqhv9@4ax.com>
References: <30rmshF33seh8U1@uni-berlin.de> <slrncqhd1b.27kg.pino@mud.stack.nl> <slrncqhe4i.pt4.chris@ccserver.keris.net> <5njhq0toq9kdsoq7vhngiul905e3ead8jd@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 60
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:55:58 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.171.135.31
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net 1101732958 24.171.135.31 (Mon, 29 Nov 2004 04:55:58 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 04:55:58 PST
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.languages.english:467
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:14:47 GMT, Bob Cunningham
<exw6sxq@earthlink.net> said:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:25:38 +0000, Chris Croughton
> <chris@keristor.net> said:
> > On 27 Nov 2004 17:06:51 GMT, Martijn van Buul
> > <pino@dohd.org> wrote:
> > > Not really, but using a correct signature seperator is, apperently.
> > I think you mean 'separator'...
Also "apparently".
> A separator is a device that's used to separate cream from
> milk. The "-or" suffix in general tends to imply a
> specialized meaning. To express a simple agent noun it
> seems better to use the "-er" suffix: "separater".
> A similar situation exists with "dictator" vs "dictater". A
> dictator is someone like Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin. A
> dictater, if the word existed, would be a person who
> dictates anything, like a letter.
> "Separater" is recognized by the _Oxford English
> Dictionary_, but only as an alternative to "separator", not
> with a different meaning. "Dictater" is not recognized by
> any dictionary that I know of, but it should be.
But "dictater" is a perfectly valid formation whether or not
it can be found in a dictionary. The suffix "-er" is fully
productive; that is, it can be added to nearly any English
verb to make an agent noun. (One who feels is a feeler; one
who absconds is an absconder; one who meditates is a
meditater.)
From the verb "allege" the noun "alleger", one who alleges,
can be legitimately formed, though it's probably not in any
dictionary. It seems preferable to the agent noun
"allegator", which does appear in _Webster's Third New
International Dictionary_ (_W3NID_) with the meaning "one
that alleges".
"Allegator", despite its being an accepted word, is a
questionable formation, since it implies the existence of a
verb "allegate", while there is no such verb, the verb form
corresponding to "allegator" being "allege". It's also a
word to be avoided because of the distraction resulting from
its droll homophonicity with the reptilian "alligator".
On further thought, I guess it's not right to say there is
no such verb as "allegate", since back formation is a
productive process and "allegate" is a proper back formation
from "allegation".
Incidentally, a number of agent nouns I've looked for in
_W3NID_ have a definition of the form "one that <verbs>". I
think "that" is a poor choice: should be "who".
|
|