auditoner or auditionee?
vvv
shouldn't it be auditioner? I always thought the one who auditions is
the one going to be judged, and not the one who judges. Or is it like
interview (interviewer and interviewee), in which case the auditioner is
the one who judges, which somehow sounds wrong to me. The online
dictinaries don't seem to recognize either of them.
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>I was watching X-factor and heard the announcer said auditionee, but
>shouldn't it be auditioner? I always thought the one who auditions is
>the one going to be judged, and not the one who judges. Or is it like
>interview (interviewer and interviewee), in which case the auditioner is
>the one who judges, which somehow sounds wrong to me. The online
>dictinaries don't seem to recognize either of them.
>
"auditioner" is correct for the judge and "auditionee" for the person
who is judged.
The words come from the Latin "audire" to hear.
The judge/auditioner is the one who listens and the singer/auditionee is
the one who is heard.
However, a performer, an actor for example, might say "I am auditioning
for a part in the play tomorrow.
This dictionary has "auditionee" in the entry for "audition":
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/audition
>--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
Patok
> I was watching X-factor and heard the announcer said auditionee, but
> shouldn't it be auditioner? I always thought the one who auditions is
> the one going to be judged, and not the one who judges. Or is it like
> interview (interviewer and interviewee), in which case the auditioner is
> the one who judges, which somehow sounds wrong to me. The online
> dictinaries don't seem to recognize either of them.
Dictionary.com has it, by way of Collins English Dictionary:
auditioner (ɔːˈdɪʃənə)
—n
a person who attends an audition
So it means both. OED agrees. It has the meaning for the one who judges first, from
1927, and the meaning for one being judged from later - 1939. OED has auditionee
too, from 1945.
--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
*
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.
Ian Jackson
Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes
>
>>I was watching X-factor and heard the announcer said auditionee, but
>>shouldn't it be auditioner? I always thought the one who auditions is
>>the one going to be judged, and not the one who judges. Or is it like
>>interview (interviewer and interviewee), in which case the auditioner is
>>the one who judges, which somehow sounds wrong to me. The online
>>dictinaries don't seem to recognize either of them.
>>
>"auditioner" is correct for the judge and "auditionee" for the person
>who is judged.
>
>The words come from the Latin "audire" to hear.
>
>The judge/auditioner is the one who listens and the singer/auditionee is
>the one who is heard.
>
>However, a performer, an actor for example, might say "I am auditioning
>for a part in the play tomorrow.
>
>This dictionary has "auditionee" in the entry for "audition":
>http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/audition
>
words. With others it is only the "er" which is in general use. Blindly
adding an "ee" often results in something which sounds like a made-up
word - one which gives the impression that the speaker/writer is simply
trying to be clever instead of being clear. "Auditionee" is a good
example!
--
Ian
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Let's imagine the use of "hearing" in place of "audition". We then have
the "hearer(s)" who hear the "heard". When there is a large number of
people being heard, a herd of heard(s), then "hearee" might have a place
in the grand scheme of things.
Ian Jackson
Glenn Knickerbocker
>Let's imagine the use of "hearing" in place of "audition". We then have
>the "hearer(s)" who hear the "heard".
ŹR "MY FLIEGENDE HOLLÄNDER WON'T STOP BLEEEEEEING!" --Poot
<http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/magictop.html> Rootbeer
John Lawler
<ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <eesv67936lran4ja77n6369oo1s1q9h...@4ax.com>, "Peter
> Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> writes
The -ee suffix is often used as an example of Ergativity.
I'm not going to try to explain that here. There're several
pretty good WIkipedia articles, one of which specifically
mentions the American English -ee suffix.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergative–absolutive_language
In any event, -ee attached to a transitive verb refers to the
Object of the verb, and attached to an intransitive verb --
which can have no object, natch -- it refers to the Subject.
Hence
He escaped = He is an escapee. [escape is intransitive]
He retired = He is a retiree. [retire is intransitive]
[interview can be either transitive or intransitive]
He interviewed that woman = He is an interviewer. She is an
interviewee.
He interviewed (for the position) = He is an interviewee.
What's being selected in all these cases is what's called
the Absolutive noun phrase in the sentence. The Absolutive
is the general, normally unmarked case in an Ergative-Absolutive
language. The Ergative case in such a language is restricted
to the subject of transitive verbs only; the subject of an
intransitive verb is equivalent to the object of a transitive,
as an Absolutive.
This normally makes no sense at all to English speakers,
because it's one of the few ergative phenomena English has
(the other has to do with the ambiguity of Chomsky's example
We all witnessed the shooting of the hunters.).
In English almost any verb can be either transitive or
intransitive; but in an Ergative-Absolutive language like
Georgian or Pocomchí, it makes a BIG difference and
it's built into the grammar in ways it isn't in our kind of
language. By contrast, speakers of ergative languages
find our concepts of "subject" and "object" completely
incomprehensible until they learn enough of the language.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation
for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-- Søren Kierkegaard
Daniel James
<41b07955-63f0-471f...@s7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> He interviewed (for the position) = He is an interviewee.
coined in ignorance to take the place that would once have required a
passive construction:
He was interviewed (for the position) = He is an interviewee.
The NSOED suggests that this usage dates only from the late 20th
century, and I would still consider it an error (in BrE, at least).
Remove the intransitive usage of "interview" and the roles of
"interviewer" and "interviewee" become much easier to explain.
Cheers,
Daniel.