Tweet
English is a funny language, as in “odd”. It has some definite rules and so many exceptions that I am surprised that any non-native speaker can learn it. Let's consider just simple endings: “er” and “ing”.
A fielder is someone who fields, as in “picks up a batted ball”, or someone who plays in a field. An eater is someone or something that eats. A flyer or flier is someone or something that flies. There's a definite pattern there, right? But there are hundreds of obvious words that are just not in the dictionary as “-er” words. Such words are always nouns and should always take an “s” as a plural. But there are “-er” words where the plural is not accepted. Words like bander/banders, melder/melders, beaner/beaners are all flagged as misspelled (singular and plural) in my word processor. They're all perfectly good words in my personal dictionary, and there are thousands like them. A baseball pitcher who throws at someone's head is trying to “bean” them, and that usage has spread to all sorts of related acts involving a blow to the head, not just in sports. One who tries to bean someone is clearly a beaner. And then there's the slang use, but that's pejorative and I'll skip it.
The ending “ing” is used to create something called a gerund, or at least it was when I was in school. Adding an “ing” ending makes a verb into a noun, and basically creates a word meaning “the process of” whatever the verb was. So, “thinking” is “the process of think”, and likewise we have sinking and stinking and winking and flying and fielding. All gerunds are nouns and all take an “s” for their plural. Except that my word processor says “slowings” is not a word, nor is rowings, bowings, tilings, steelings, reelings, and undoubtedly thousands of others.
Every board I play, I type at least one word I am sure is a word. It obeys the rules of English, its meaning is clear, and often enough there is no more common word used in its place (good example: “ableness” is not accepted because “ability” already exists). But the word I used, no matter how well I can defend it, is not accepted and there is no appeal.
The problem with all of this is the slippery slope you create. There is no formal English rule against repeatedly adding “re” as a prefix, for example. So: repeating, rerepeating, rererepeating, etc. should all be accepted. Likewise, prerecognizabilities, superrecognizabilities, and all manner of clearly manufactured and unnecessary words would be created if there weren't limits.
And yet I still think that short and obvious words that obey the rules ought to be accepted by everyone and all dictionaries. I have no idea how to go about finding and creating such words for addition to the dictionary, however. Perhaps Stephen can. But if he can't, I can find no fault in him. Maybe someone can. I would like to hear from you, if so.
A fielder is someone who fields, as in “picks up a batted ball”, or someone who plays in a field. An eater is someone or something that eats. A flyer or flier is someone or something that flies. There's a definite pattern there, right? But there are hundreds of obvious words that are just not in the dictionary as “-er” words. Such words are always nouns and should always take an “s” as a plural. But there are “-er” words where the plural is not accepted. Words like bander/banders, melder/melders, beaner/beaners are all flagged as misspelled (singular and plural) in my word processor. They're all perfectly good words in my personal dictionary, and there are thousands like them. A baseball pitcher who throws at someone's head is trying to “bean” them, and that usage has spread to all sorts of related acts involving a blow to the head, not just in sports. One who tries to bean someone is clearly a beaner. And then there's the slang use, but that's pejorative and I'll skip it.
The ending “ing” is used to create something called a gerund, or at least it was when I was in school. Adding an “ing” ending makes a verb into a noun, and basically creates a word meaning “the process of” whatever the verb was. So, “thinking” is “the process of think”, and likewise we have sinking and stinking and winking and flying and fielding. All gerunds are nouns and all take an “s” for their plural. Except that my word processor says “slowings” is not a word, nor is rowings, bowings, tilings, steelings, reelings, and undoubtedly thousands of others.
Every board I play, I type at least one word I am sure is a word. It obeys the rules of English, its meaning is clear, and often enough there is no more common word used in its place (good example: “ableness” is not accepted because “ability” already exists). But the word I used, no matter how well I can defend it, is not accepted and there is no appeal.
The problem with all of this is the slippery slope you create. There is no formal English rule against repeatedly adding “re” as a prefix, for example. So: repeating, rerepeating, rererepeating, etc. should all be accepted. Likewise, prerecognizabilities, superrecognizabilities, and all manner of clearly manufactured and unnecessary words would be created if there weren't limits.
And yet I still think that short and obvious words that obey the rules ought to be accepted by everyone and all dictionaries. I have no idea how to go about finding and creating such words for addition to the dictionary, however. Perhaps Stephen can. But if he can't, I can find no fault in him. Maybe someone can. I would like to hear from you, if so.
Comment