Agora Item #1. the "Welcome to Summer" item lost its compass over
the weekend and drifted into the realm of language. Before we get
to fall, I have copied just the language-drifted portions here.

#103 of 116: by Valerie Mates (popcorn) on Sat, Sep 11, 1993 (21:54):
[stuff deleted}
Once in a while you run across a calender where the
 calender-maker was very careful to make all the weather in the pictures
 match what's usually really happening in the world at that time, but
 the calender-maker lived someplace far across the country, and the
 weather for the different months is all "wrong", with the leaves turning
 color a month too early or late.

 (how *do* you spell "calender"?)

#105 of 116: by Steve Weiss (srw) on Sun, Sep 12, 1993 (01:36):
 The word you are using is spelled "calendar".
 Calender is a word, though, so don't trust your spell checker!

 calendar n. 1. any of various systems of reckoning time.
             2. a tabular arrangement of the days of each month, etc. etc.
 calender n. 1. a machine in which cloth, paper, or the like is smoothed,
                glazed, etc., by pressing between two revolving cylinders.
             2. a machine for impregnating fabric with rubber, as in the
                manufacture of automobile tires.
        v.t. 3 to press in a calender.

 Aren't you glad you asked? (Thank you, Random House Unabridged)

 <dictionary drift = off>

#107 of 116: by Bruce Allen Price (bap) on Sun, Sep 12, 1993 (02:16):
 and what does it make of colander?

#108 of 116: by Steve Weiss (srw) on Sun, Sep 12, 1993 (02:24):
 At least colander is pronounced differently.
 When we first came to AA (eons ago) my wife wanted to buy a colander,
 but the people in the store had no clue what she was talking about.
 After sending her to the stationery department for a calendar didn't
 satisfy her, she asked the clerk, "What do you drain your spaghetti in?"
 The answer... " The sink" (sigh).

 And now back to our discussion of the seasons.

#110 of 116: by Rane Curl (rcurl) on Sun, Sep 12, 1993 (11:26):
 Calendar, calender, colander, colandar (?)...before all of this vanishes
 into the End of Summer, bring this discussion over to Language. Are there
 other words with this amazing melange of similar spellings but disparate
 meanings?

[srw then does it, so now we have this item.]

Thanks rcurl, I was thinking of doing this but I needed the push.

So this item is to continue the discussion of these or other words
with an "amazing melange" of similar spellings but disparate meanings.

rcurl, I believe "colandar" is not a word.

21 responses total.

You forgot "co-lender" and "co-lander".  The latter I just made up, but the
former is well-attested.

 a colander is a device used in the kitchen for draining pasta and 
other yummy things...

I meant "someone who alights along with another"; that's why the hyphen.

My dictionary is dated 1966 but is very complete. It does not show
lander as a word. It may have been added in the intevening decades
though. The only use of lander as a word that I can remember is
"Lunar lander" or "Mars lander". This use is almost jargon, IMO.

I acknowledge that the language is always changing, and that this
is good, but I have a tendency to be conservative about this.
I'm not sure I buy "lander" any other opinions?
If we can establish "lander" as a word, it's another leap to get
"co-lander". Amusing though, in the context of this item.

I *said* that I'd just made it up - however, by the kind of process by which
it's *always* appropriate to coin words.  You're too reliant on your
dictionary.

Lunar lander.

Look up -er. "d) added to verbs, meaning a person or thing that [sprayer,
roller]; see also -ar or -or." The suffix -er is also added to nouns,
place names [New Yorker], adverbs [later], etc. This suggests that
my speculative "colandar" is also OK, although not conventional. The
same dictionary says that "-ar is equivalent to -er". The dictionary
blesses the general application of these suffixes. The question, then, is
whether every possible such use must be listed to be legitimate. I
don't think so. 

The issue of when to use one of -er -ar -or rather than another is indeed
a good deal stickier, & I'd hate to even *try* to give a general
explanation of the factors.  Sometimes more than one is correct, but aside
from etymological considerations in the origins of these things the most
important rule seems to be something like: when one form is in common use,
don't use a different one.  (And the rule of thumb is: if you're in doubt
& can't look it up (or it's not in your dictionary), use -er.)

Which is where the who issue started, when calender was used for
calendar. I like rules like that, which are meant to be broken.

The "who issue"???  (sf sf)

Well, I make a distiction between coined words and generally accepted
words. davel admitted that co-lander was a coined word. If it gets
used enough it may become generally accepted. I don't think that'll
happen. I don't think davel does either.

I'll accept that lander is a word. You can put "er" after some verbs
to create a word that represents the agent. I will argue that this is
not true for all verbs though. For example, a person who graduates
from a school is not a graduater. Graduater is not a word. This is
an example, I believe, where the formation is irregular. ("Graduate"
is the correct form.) Other verbs may fail simply because the
concept of an agent for that verb just doesn't make sense.
(To die) What about "To exit"? Is "exiter" a word. I don't think so.

To Land, producing "lander" is only a word because it was coined
during the space race and has come into general use. If my
dictionary had been newer, it would have been there.

I coin words, too, and I think I rely on my dictionary just the
right amount.

I think -ar and -or are equivalent to -er, but only when they form
words. You can't add -ar to "to advise" to get "advisar". It's
wrong. "adviser" and "advisor" are both accepted.  I think these
words *do* have to appear in a dictionary to be correct.

To "graduate" in the sense of "to divide or mark in degrees" does
have an agent form. It is "graduator". the -ar and -er forms are
not words in my opinion.

Right.  As I said, generally only one of these is correct, and the rules
for which is correct are subtle & complicated (& somewhat determined by
complete accidents of history, I suspect).

These opinions sound somewhat pedantic. How did those words come into
use? Someone used them. Apparently because lots of people use a form,
it is "OK". When did it become "OK"? It wasn't OK before that? If it
wasn't, how did it ever become "OK"? 

Graduater (or graduator) is certainly OK. You erred in ascribing it to
the result, not the action. The teacher does the graduating of the
students, so a teacher is a graduator. Also, a person that puts the
little lines on a thermometer is a graduater (honestly!). 

Exiter - more properly exitor - is quite alright, if you accept that "exit"
is a verb (I don't, but that is a different story - the correct verb is
to leave.) 

The bottom line is - are you going to go through life letting *others*
coin -ar, -er and -or words, and getting all the fame, without seeking
your own?

Your Advisar.

Some are OK only when widely enough used.  Some are OK even if no one ever
actually uses them.

(I'll accept the charge of being pedantic, but did you maybe mean "academic"?)

Well, the whole discussion is academic, but some opinions are pedantic
(after, "to peddle"; to spend time on trifles 8->).

Yes, this discussion is academic. It's not boring though (is it?)
I think Rane's accusation of pedantry was directed at me, not you davel.

pedantic, adj. displaying an overemphasis of rules or other minor details.
(there are other meanings given, but I think this is what rcurl meant).

I have opinions about the correctness of certain usages in English,
and you may argue that they are pedantic. It's all relative.
It sounds to me like you want to play fast and loose with the
language. 

I coin words..I don't let everyone else have all the fun.
Coined words are just that, though. They don't become a part of the
language until they are accepted. There is no official acceptance
process. This is admittedly vague. Appearance in a good dictionary is
one easy way to convince me that a word has been accepted. It's not
the only way though. 

I have never heard of graduater or exiter used in the way you state.
Since they also do not appear in my unabridged dictionary, I am
currently of the opinion that they are both not accepted words.

Exit can be used as a verb. I have heard it so used many times.
I am convinced it is accepted by most English speaking people
*AND* it says so in the dictionary too.

I must exit now.

Leave, if you must. Words are messages in bottles, cast upon the seas
of time. Some are found and read, and some have never been uttered before,
and some are uttered often, but never repeated again. Sometimes one is
uttered and repeated, and spreads; or uttered severally, and spreads
faster. Our little word games and inventions are seeds, a few of which
take root. Language is largely stable, but not immune, to these
inventions. Therefore I do not fear contaminating the language, but my
own inventions and usages. I hardly need to worry whether they are
*accepted* are not! If someone accepts one some day, it lasts a little
longer. Most inventions last very few generations. But I can have fun
along the way, sending forth my verbal bottles. 

(It was fun saying all that, but I don't practice what I preach.)

Interesting image - verbal bottles - I like it.
I have only one problem with all of #19. You said that you
hardly need worry whether your usages are accepted or not!

Fine, don't worry. The purpose of language is communication.  If
any usage will communicate precisely what is intended, then it's
OK with me, too. I find, however, that when a word is misspelled or
misused that communication is impeded to varying degrees.

If I were to say "advisar" instead of either acceptable form,
for example, the reader might
(1) wonder whether I meant a different word
(2) think I didn't know how to spell
(3) think I didn't care enough about what I was saying to get it
    right.
(4) not even notice
or perhaps something else, I know not what.

This is a rather trivial example, with several small downside
risks and no upside I can see. In case (4) I break even
versus using an accepted spelling, and that's about the best I can
hope for. In all the other cases I communicated something
unintended. Therefore I choose to worry whether my usage is accepted.

Does this make me a slave to rules of English usage?
Perhaps, but I also coin words when the situation calls for it,
so I don't think it's particularly slavish.

I'm with you, Steve.  I just think your particular criteria are wrong.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss