Room 101 - what single aspect of modern life should be consigned to oblivion?

[jean]

By using -ize, I suspect many 17th and 18th-Century writers and dictionary compilers were demonstrating their knowledge of classical language...

But in fact both spellings were in use from very early on.

From the OED:

1297 R. Gloucester's Chron. 86 He was ybaptized þere.

a1400 (1325) Cursor Mundi (Vesp.) l. 12897 Selcut was to thinc‥þe clerc to baptis þe prist.

1520 Chron. Eng. iv. f. 28/2, Oure lorde Jhesu cryst at 30 yere of age was baptysed.

1561 T. Norton tr. J. Calvin Inst. Christian Relig. iv. f. 105, The very worde of Baptizing signifieth to dippe.

1667 Milton Paradise Lost xii. 442 Them who shall beleeve Baptizing in the profluent streame.

[Petrushka]

Another strange phenomenom of recent years that should be consigned to Room 101 is the charity mugger or 'chugger', you know those young people who stop you on the pavement while you're minding your own business or doing the shopping and try to twist your arm into paying £10 a month by direct debit towards the charity who are paying them to do it.

If I wish to give to charity it will be one of my own choosing, thanks.

[Old Grumpy]

because?

A boxed set is a set of CDs (or DVDs) in a box.

A box set is a set of boxes.

Pedantry, I know, but it seems in the spirit of this thread!

[Pabmusic]

But in fact both spellings were in use from very early on.
[/COLOR]

Yes, I accept that. I meant that, in the great period of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, English adopted a huge number of new words. The self-appointed regulators were numerous scholars and later dictionary compilers who were keen to demonstrate their learning. They were responsible for giving us spellings such as debt and verdict, and I suspect had a strong influence on any new -ize constructions (there must have been many scientific ones, for instance), where they'd have been keen to show the Greek ancestry. Before then, I don't doubt that both were used (though I suspect that -ise forms may have been more common, since it became the standard form in French). English has never been a tidy language.

An interesting post. The Anglo-Saxon letter Thorn (þ for th) can be found occasionally as late as the early 19th Century. It was popular with printers (one letter rather than two) and did much to contribute to the "Ye olde..." myth, since 'the', spelt þe, looks a bit like 'ye'.

[VodkaDilc]

Another strange phenomenom of recent years that should be consigned to Room 101 is the charity mugger or 'chugger', you know those young people who stop you on the pavement while you're minding your own business or doing the shopping and try to twist your arm into paying £10 a month by direct debit towards the charity who are paying them to do it.

If I wish to give to charity it will be one of my own choosing, thanks.

I find they never stop me! I must look mean - or, more likely, they know that anyone over a certain age is less likely to sign up.

What particularly annoys me is that they turn down any offer to put 50p or whatever in their box. A one-off donation is peanuts to them - they want a monthly direct debit!!

[cloughie]

A boxed set is a set of CDs (or DVDs) in a box.

A box set is a set of boxes.

Pedantry, I know, but it seems in the spirit of this thread!

If you have two the same it is a boxing match.

[Flosshilde]

I don't know how old you are (or look ) VodkaDilk (I was going to abreviate your name, but realised that it would be worse than Beef Oven's ), but they are always trying to stop me. I sail past with a firm 'No'. I've been contemplating stopping when approached by a male one & saying that I don't want to sign up, but he's terribly cute & would he like to meet me later? I think word would get around & they would steer clear of me in future

More seriously, I think these people tend to occupy the collection slots allowed by local councils, with the result that smaller, local, charities don't get a look-in.

[decantor]

While the whiff of pedantry is still in the air, perhaps I could add a little something to the -ER / -OR discussion.

Both endings convert a verb into an Agent Noun (the person who does the verb): in English, -ER is simply added to the basic verb-stem, while in Latin -OR is added to the verb's Supine stem. Thus, if the (English) verb is based on the Supine stem of a Latin verb (eg translate, act, detect) then the Agent noun is formed with -OR (eg translator, actor, detector); otherwise, the Agent noun is formed with -ER (eg runner, commander, seer).

Adviser is correct since advis- is not a Latin Supine stem. Sponsor is a Latin noun in its own right - English has not adopted its basic verb except in compound form (eg respondent, despondent). Miser does not enter the equation at all, as it is based on a Latin adjective (also seen in miserable, misery), and there is no verb mise- in either language.

Where Latin Supine stems have really prospered in English is in providing the stem for the abstract-noun ending -ION. Thus vision warns of the spelling visor, while the absence of advision warns of adviser....... similarly translation > translator, action > actor, faction > factor, collection > collector, etc.

Since not all English-speakers over the last 500 years have had a secure grasp of Latin, anomalies may have arisen. The relatively new creation transistor is a case in point - it should have been a transtitor - but the great strength of English is its adaptability, and the great strength of Latin is that, being dead, it can't complain.

Right, I'm off to find Room 101 for a lie down.....

[Beef Oven]

While the whiff of pedantry is still in the air, perhaps I could add a little something to the -ER / -OR discussion.

Both endings convert a verb into an Agent Noun (the person who does the verb): in English, -ER is simply added to the basic verb-stem, while in Latin -OR is added to the verb's Supine stem. Thus, if the (English) verb is based on the Supine stem of a Latin verb (eg translate, act, detect) then the Agent noun is formed with -OR (eg translator, actor, detector); otherwise, the Agent noun is formed with -ER (eg runner, commander, seer).

Adviser is correct since advis- is not a Latin Supine stem. Sponsor is a Latin noun in its own right - English has not adopted its basic verb except in compound form (eg respondent, despondent). Miser does not enter the equation at all, as it is based on a Latin adjective (also seen in miserable, misery), and there is no verb mise- in either language.

Where Latin Supine stems have really prospered in English is in providing the stem for the abstract-noun ending -ION. Thus vision warns of the spelling visor, while the absence of advision warns of adviser....... similarly translation > translator, action > actor, faction > factor, collection > collector, etc.

Since not all English-speakers over the last 500 years have had a secure grasp of Latin, anomalies may have arisen. The relatively new creation transistor is a case in point - it should have been a transtitor - but the great strength of English is its adaptability, and the great strength of Latin is that, being dead, it can't complain.

Right, I'm off to find Room 101 for a lie down.....

Spot-on, great analysis.

I didn't understand any of it, but I think it's brilliant.

[Flosshilde]

I didn't understand any of it, but I think it's brilliant.

Just like the good old days of the Third Programme

[Pabmusic]

While the whiff of pedantry is still in the air, perhaps I could add a little something to the -ER / -OR discussion....Since not all English-speakers over the last 500 years have had a secure grasp of Latin, anomalies may have arisen. The relatively new creation transistor is a case in point - it should have been a transtitor - but the great strength of English is its adaptability, and the great strength of Latin is that, being dead, it can't complain.

Right, I'm off to find Room 101 for a lie down.....

A great post. We ought to be cautious about being guided entirely by Latin, though, as many such words (certainly the older ones) came to us from Norman French, where the usual ending was -eour, or from Old French, where it was -eor (either of which I suppose could come down to us as -er or -or equally). Later words (16th, 17th and 18th Centuries) were more directly Latin-based, often because they were made up by people who understood classical languages.

[Lateralthinking1]

While the whiff of pedantry is still in the air, perhaps I could add a little something to the -ER / -OR discussion.

Both endings convert a verb into an Agent Noun (the person who does the verb): in English, -ER is simply added to the basic verb-stem, while in Latin -OR is added to the verb's Supine stem. Thus, if the (English) verb is based on the Supine stem of a Latin verb (eg translate, act, detect) then the Agent noun is formed with -OR (eg translator, actor, detector); otherwise, the Agent noun is formed with -ER (eg runner, commander, seer).

Adviser is correct since advis- is not a Latin Supine stem. Sponsor is a Latin noun in its own right - English has not adopted its basic verb except in compound form (eg respondent, despondent). Miser does not enter the equation at all, as it is based on a Latin adjective (also seen in miserable, misery), and there is no verb mise- in either language.

Where Latin Supine stems have really prospered in English is in providing the stem for the abstract-noun ending -ION. Thus vision warns of the spelling visor, while the absence of advision warns of adviser....... similarly translation > translator, action > actor, faction > factor, collection > collector, etc.

Since not all English-speakers over the last 500 years have had a secure grasp of Latin, anomalies may have arisen. The relatively new creation transistor is a case in point - it should have been a transtitor - but the great strength of English is its adaptability, and the great strength of Latin is that, being dead, it can't complain. Right, I'm off to find Room 101 for a lie down.....

Thank you for this explanation. Good that you think "adviser" is the correct spelling. To my mind this confirms that "advisor" is about as rooted in the English language as "xjkllllooopqwyz".

I wasn't aware of the distinctions - "er" added to the basic verb (English) and "or" to the Supine verb stem (Latin). When I was thinking about the "or" endings, I did note the connection with "ion" but didn't mention it. ("investigator", "investigatory", "investigation" etc). I don't know whether you could say "er" and "or" words grew in significant numbers at the same times or whether as a trend they developed in slightly different eras?

I accept your advice on "miser". To me, it sounds like it should be linked to "mettre" (put, place onto put away, hoard) but it isn't as the french have "avare". Irregular adjective-based noun though it is, it nevertheless shows that the "ser" spelling of "adviser" isn't unique, whatever the root. People do think when they see it that no other word ends in "ser". I don't know why this should be. "Sponsor" as I also indicated was a noun first. It was not a verb until the 19th century. We frequently use it as a verb today - "I want to sponsor her daughter". There is a temptation of seeing "advisor" as similar but to my mind that would be wholly wrong. "Advisor" isn't a Latin noun but rather 1930s-1990s America.

Do you mean that "transistor" should have been "transtitor" or should it have been "transitor"?

[mangerton]

Decantor, as others have said, 158 is a great post, with a lucid, credible, explanation. May I please take issue with you on one point?

The word "transistor" was coined by one of those involved in its development as a portmanteau of "transfer" and "resistor". The ending -or was given to be consistent with other electronic devices, eg resistor, capacitor, inductor and thermistor.

This of course now raises the question of why these terms don't end in -er, especially when one remembers the old name for capacitor was "condenser".

[jean]

...Thus vision warns of the spelling visor, while the absence of advision warns of adviser.....

True, but the existence of advisory makes the variant advisor almost inevitable.

(The OED tells me this is a N American coinage and it's found as early as the mid-eighteenth century, though it was touch and go whether the spelling advisary would be the one that became established.)

[Lateralthinking1]

True, but the existence of advisory makes the variant advisor almost inevitable.

(The OED tells me this is a N American coinage and it's found as early as the mid-eighteenth century, though it was touch and go whether the spelling advisary would be the one that became established.)

Which version do you have? Mine is 2010, Third edition. It doesn't say that at all but rather refers to the 1930s.