Yeah, I'd go with -er, too. Casting my brain back to when I was studying Linguistics, I'm pretty sure that the Latinate -or and our English -er don't have the same morphological semantic content, so I'm pretty sure the -er is preferred if you're going for 'person who requested'.
You're getting me all excited. Yup, Latin derivates or those usually associated with Latin get -or while non-Latin (etymologically speaking) agent nouns get -er. Since Latin is considered "high brow" or the language of perfection (this is way back when Samuel Johnson et al were wanking together, the -or ending is connotatively more formal or superior while -er is more casual or common.
SO, I would disagree with -er mostly. The choice of -er or -or depends on the audience. If you're writing genre fiction, Joe Working Class, some Francis White Collar, or others who don't like it when people "put on airs," -er is better. For formal things, like those who put on airs, college folks, and those who tend more toward the "own" side of the relationship with the means of production, use -or. Why would this even matter? Technically, it actually doesn't. Where it matters is where spelling matters. People who are used to the -er ending might think it looks weird. People who are used to the -or ending might think it looks weird. And the way to tell without asking is via social class. That works for all words that don't have a set way. Like computer and computator.
I tend to find the 'Latin is high brow and superior' more of an historical artifact in English rather than a prescription we should still be following. There's nothing low brow about splitting an infinitive. It's a wholly artificial rule imposed upon English simply because it's impossible to split an infinitive in Latin, and yes, a bunch of language snobs got together a few hundred years ago to reform English into something more like Latin. I'll happily stick with "To boldly go".
-or is fine on whole Latin loan words (rector, lictor, senator etc) but it's not a productive agentive suffix in English. -er is (as demonstrated by Bush's amusing formation of 'decider'). Thus -er is the morpheme to use except in cases where it is blocked by another form (usually, as you say, historical or classically derived. e.g., We prefer president over presider). When we use the word rector, we're not building it semantically as 'someone who rects'. And while 'request' certainly has Latin roots, to the best of my knowledge request/or -oris is not actually a Latin noun. At least I can't find it in my Latin dictionary, and thus requester isn't blocked by a pre-existing requestor form. ^_^;;
This made me pull my old Morphology textbook off the shelf. It's been, cripes, ten years since I was taking Linguistics and Latin and similar junk... :D It's fun though - those were my favourite academic years by far.
Oh, man, I hope I don't seem combative. If so, I'm sorry, Muffie. Erp.
No apologies needed! You're not even close to combative. (Believe me, I know combative; I live surrounded by Leos.)
Besides, Muffie's one of those that if you were to throw down the gauntlet -- with footnotes -- I betcha she'd be all over that and having the time of her life.
Still not the same as being on a Harley, but, eh, second-best. ;-)
Yup! Too bad you can't read grammar books on a Harley. Harumph.
Combative is kinda the me thing. I'm trying very hard not to be. Ahimsa and all that. :) As long as it's all in good fun and S has plenty of sanding paper, we're all good.
Anyway, yeah, Lowth and his Latin-eros is anachronistic and mostly really stupid, but the simple fact is that in any given society, and language is just another facet of society, there is the elite folks and there's the peasants. I used to be petite-bourgiesie, but I married proletariat. Not that this is important in any way. It takes generations to change a mindset and that's when we tackle things by choice. Byron started the split infinitive fight and it wasn't until the '80s that it became "okay" to split infinitives in formal writing. By "okay" I mean that the average grammar snob could read a split infinitive and not be really bothered by it and the average well-read person wouldn't really even notice it was there.
Some things still dangle around and the elitist bias toward Latin based grammar/spelling is one of those. It's not English, it's society. Women earned the right to vote in the 20s, but female literature wasn't taught in basic literature courses in the average university until the 80s. Stuff hangs out. Like "flash in the pan". Most people don't even know what that means. It literally comes from flintlock rifles. The gunpowder and round was loaded in the barrel and a little pan was loaded with primer that burned hot and set off the gunpowder after it was struck with the flint. A flash in the pan meant the primer had been touched off, flashed, but the gun didn't fire. Flintlocks went out of general use over 150 years ago when matchlocks came out and put the primer inside the barrel. Linguistic elitist stereotypes persist just as easily. Which is why when there is an equivalence between a Latin based choice and a non-Latin based choice (even if the so-called Latin based choice has not etymological Latin in the old family tree), then the Latin based choice will have more prestige.
This isn't language, it's the I'm-better-than-you thing and ways to make people prove it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 28 Feb 2007 07:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 28 Feb 2007 07:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 28 Feb 2007 08:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 28 Feb 2007 09:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 1 Mar 2007 02:16 am (UTC)SO, I would disagree with -er mostly. The choice of -er or -or depends on the audience. If you're writing genre fiction, Joe Working Class, some Francis White Collar, or others who don't like it when people "put on airs," -er is better. For formal things, like those who put on airs, college folks, and those who tend more toward the "own" side of the relationship with the means of production, use -or. Why would this even matter? Technically, it actually doesn't. Where it matters is where spelling matters. People who are used to the -er ending might think it looks weird. People who are used to the -or ending might think it looks weird. And the way to tell without asking is via social class. That works for all words that don't have a set way. Like computer and computator.
no subject
Date: 1 Mar 2007 03:17 am (UTC)-or is fine on whole Latin loan words (rector, lictor, senator etc) but it's not a productive agentive suffix in English. -er is (as demonstrated by Bush's amusing formation of 'decider'). Thus -er is the morpheme to use except in cases where it is blocked by another form (usually, as you say, historical or classically derived. e.g., We prefer president over presider). When we use the word rector, we're not building it semantically as 'someone who rects'. And while 'request' certainly has Latin roots, to the best of my knowledge request/or -oris is not actually a Latin noun. At least I can't find it in my Latin dictionary, and thus requester isn't blocked by a pre-existing requestor form. ^_^;;
no subject
Date: 1 Mar 2007 06:16 am (UTC)*sits back to enjoy the show*
no subject
Date: 1 Mar 2007 06:38 am (UTC)Oh, man, I hope I don't seem combative. If so, I'm sorry, Muffie. Erp.
no subject
Date: 1 Mar 2007 07:17 am (UTC)Besides, Muffie's one of those that if you were to throw down the gauntlet -- with footnotes -- I betcha she'd be all over that and having the time of her life.
Still not the same as being on a Harley, but, eh, second-best. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2 Mar 2007 04:49 am (UTC)Combative is kinda the me thing. I'm trying very hard not to be. Ahimsa and all that. :) As long as it's all in good fun and S has plenty of sanding paper, we're all good.
Anyway, yeah, Lowth and his Latin-eros is anachronistic and mostly really stupid, but the simple fact is that in any given society, and language is just another facet of society, there is the elite folks and there's the peasants. I used to be petite-bourgiesie, but I married proletariat. Not that this is important in any way. It takes generations to change a mindset and that's when we tackle things by choice. Byron started the split infinitive fight and it wasn't until the '80s that it became "okay" to split infinitives in formal writing. By "okay" I mean that the average grammar snob could read a split infinitive and not be really bothered by it and the average well-read person wouldn't really even notice it was there.
Some things still dangle around and the elitist bias toward Latin based grammar/spelling is one of those. It's not English, it's society. Women earned the right to vote in the 20s, but female literature wasn't taught in basic literature courses in the average university until the 80s. Stuff hangs out. Like "flash in the pan". Most people don't even know what that means. It literally comes from flintlock rifles. The gunpowder and round was loaded in the barrel and a little pan was loaded with primer that burned hot and set off the gunpowder after it was struck with the flint. A flash in the pan meant the primer had been touched off, flashed, but the gun didn't fire. Flintlocks went out of general use over 150 years ago when matchlocks came out and put the primer inside the barrel. Linguistic elitist stereotypes persist just as easily. Which is why when there is an equivalence between a Latin based choice and a non-Latin based choice (even if the so-called Latin based choice has not etymological Latin in the old family tree), then the Latin based choice will have more prestige.
This isn't language, it's the I'm-better-than-you thing and ways to make people prove it.
no subject
Date: 1 Mar 2007 02:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 1 Mar 2007 11:10 pm (UTC)someone steal my computer and make me do housework already
no subject
Date: 2 Mar 2007 03:48 am (UTC)