the word 'preestablished'
John Goche
Hello,
I was wondering how come the word preestablished
does not appear in my m-w.com or collins dictionary.
I thought it would be a common word. Also, is it
spelled with a hyphen in the UK and without
in the USA? How should I spell it and why
is it not listed in dictionaries?
Thanks,
John Goche
HVS
It's in the OED -- hyphenated, with examples from 1643 to 2000, and
with a "special use" definition for "pre-established harmony"
(Leibniz's philosophy).
It's presumably left out of Collins and M-W on the grounds that
"pre" is a productive prefix that can form an almost endless number
of words.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
It is defined in the OED. It has a hyphen. The words "pre-establish" and
"pre-establishment" are also in the OED.
A word that is constructed by putting a standard prefix on another word
will not get into every dictionary because the meaning will be obvious.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
John Dean
Before believing that a word is "not listed in dictionaries" you need to
check the better class of dictionary. As others have pointed out, OED has
'pre-established' (and includes one cite without the hyphen).
--
John Dean
Oxford
mm
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:42:59 -0700 (PDT), John Goche
><johng...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I was wondering how come the word preestablished
>>does not appear in my m-w.com or collins dictionary.
>>I thought it would be a common word. Also, is it
>>spelled with a hyphen in the UK and without
>>in the USA? How should I spell it and why
>>is it not listed in dictionaries?
>>
>It is defined in the OED. It has a hyphen. The words "pre-establish" and
>"pre-establishment" are also in the OED.
The hyphen is used just because it's easier to read that way, right?
>A word that is constructed by putting a standard prefix on another word
>will not get into every dictionary because the meaning will be obvious.
--
Posters should say where they live, and for which
area they are asking questions. I have lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 10 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:27:30 +0100, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:42:59 -0700 (PDT), John Goche
>><johng...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>I was wondering how come the word preestablished
>>>does not appear in my m-w.com or collins dictionary.
>>>I thought it would be a common word. Also, is it
>>>spelled with a hyphen in the UK and without
>>>in the USA? How should I spell it and why
>>>is it not listed in dictionaries?
>>>
>>It is defined in the OED. It has a hyphen. The words "pre-establish" and
>>"pre-establishment" are also in the OED.
>
>The hyphen is used just because it's easier to read that way, right?
>
I think so.
>>A word that is constructed by putting a standard prefix on another word
>>will not get into every dictionary because the meaning will be obvious.
--
Ian Jackson
Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes
I could not decide how to spell it. Is it "peeer" or "pee-er"? Neither
looks right.
--
Ian
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> Only yesterday, I needed to use the word for someone who takes a 'pee'.
> I could not decide how to spell it. Is it "peeer" or "pee-er"? Neither
> looks right.
Do as The New Yorker does: pee�r. (For latecomers, that's a dieresis
over the third "e", not an umlaut.)
Works better on "pr�established."
--
Bob Li�blich
Die, Eresis!
Robert Lieblich
Works even better if you put the dieresis over the second "e" rather
than the first.
--
Bob Lieblich
Who has embarrassed himself so many times that he no longer bothers to
apologize
Sydney Sorenson
<r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Robert Lieblich wrote:
>>
>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> > Only yesterday, I needed to use the word for someone who takes a 'pee'.
>> > I could not decide how to spell it. Is it "peeer" or "pee-er"? Neither
>> > looks right.
>>
>> Do as The New Yorker does: pee�r.
Or follow the precedent of the word for one who sees: "seer," hence
"peer."
Also note that a shorter Oxford has both "seer" and the alternative
"see-er" for one who sees.
Using the latter precedent, I prefer "pee-er" for one who pees. I
think more people will immediately get the meaning of that than will
be familiar with the use of a dieresis for undiphthongization.
>> (For latecomers, that's a dieresis
>> over the third "e", not an umlaut.)
>> Works better on "pr�established."
>
>Works even better if you put the dieresis over the second "e" rather
>than the first.
--
Sydney Sorenson | Lack of money is the root of all evil.
AmE |
Bill McCray
Peeist?
Bill in Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reverse parts of the user name and ISP name for my e-address
John Varela
wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:27:30 +0100, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >It is defined in the OED. It has a hyphen. The words "pre-establish" and
> >"pre-establishment" are also in the OED.
>
> The hyphen is used just because it's easier to read that way, right?
I can't recall ever having seen a dieresis on an e, but this would
be the place for one.
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Ian Jackson
<OLDl...@verizon.net> writes
>On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:42:06 UTC, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:27:30 +0100, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> >It is defined in the OED. It has a hyphen. The words "pre-establish" and
>> >"pre-establishment" are also in the OED.
>>
>> The hyphen is used just because it's easier to read that way, right?
>
>I can't recall ever having seen a dieresis on an e, but this would
>be the place for one.
>
"The di�resis is a diacritic mark ( � ) used in English to indicate that
two adjacent vowels are to be pronounced separately as in Bo�tes, No�l
and na�ve, the names Zo� and Chlo� and words like re�nter and co�perate.
Despite its long history in English, the di�resis is decreasingly common
in modern usage, though The New Yorker magazine is a prominent
exception. Dutch uses the same mark in a similar way, (for example
co�ffici�nt), but as with English there is now a preference for
hyphenation - so zee�end (seaduck) is now spelled zee-eend."
Apart from its 'traditional' use in names, and words like 'na�ve', I
think I prefer the working man's hyphen.
--
Ian
Sydney Sorenson
wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:42:06 UTC, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:27:30 +0100, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> >It is defined in the OED. It has a hyphen. The words "pre-establish" and
>> >"pre-establishment" are also in the OED.
>>
>> The hyphen is used just because it's easier to read that way, right?
>
>I can't recall ever having seen a dieresis on an e, but this would
>be the place for one.
American English, as it is actually used by the American in the
street, has no place for the dieresis for undiphthongization. When a
writer fears ambiguity, he or she will use a hyphen, but in many cases
the two identical vowels are juxtaposed with no such fear.
Incidentally, I see a Webster's dictionary has "de-emphasize,"
"de-emphasis," and "de-emphases," but "reemphasize." In fact, a
wild-card search on "re-e*" gets no hits, while a wild card search on
"de-e*" gets numerous hits.
A wild-card search on "*e�*" gets no hits.
IMHO, use of the dieresis for undiphthongizing is an esotericism.
--
Sydney Sorenson | Look before you leap, because he who hesitates is
AmE | lost.
Sydney Sorenson
Hear hear here!
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<Sorr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:08:09 -0400, Robert Lieblich
><r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Robert Lieblich wrote:
>>>
>>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>> > Only yesterday, I needed to use the word for someone who takes a 'pee'.
>>> > I could not decide how to spell it. Is it "peeer" or "pee-er"? Neither
>>> > looks right.
>>>
>>> Do as The New Yorker does: pee�r.
>
>Or follow the precedent of the word for one who sees: "seer," hence
>"peer."
>
>Also note that a shorter Oxford has both "seer" and the alternative
>"see-er" for one who sees.
>
>Using the latter precedent, I prefer "pee-er" for one who pees.
As "pee-er" is not a pre-established word but one (re)invented on the
fly, it is useful to ensure that it is distinguished from the existing
noun "peer". I would prounounce them differently in BrE. It seem
reasonable to spell them differently.
> I
>think more people will immediately get the meaning of that than will
>be familiar with the use of a dieresis for undiphthongization.
>
>>> (For latecomers, that's a dieresis
>>> over the third "e", not an umlaut.)
>>> Works better on "pr�established."
>>
>>Works even better if you put the dieresis over the second "e" rather
>>than the first.
--
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
A "Peeist" is a bit more than just one who pees. A "Peeist" is a
supporter of the "Peeism" philosophy and movement.
Ian Jackson
Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes
>On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:35:07 -0700, Sydney Sorenson
><Sorr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:08:09 -0400, Robert Lieblich
>><r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Robert Lieblich wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>
>>>> > Only yesterday, I needed to use the word for someone who takes a 'pee'.
>>>> > I could not decide how to spell it. Is it "peeer" or "pee-er"? Neither
>>>> > looks right.
>>>>
>>>> Do as The New Yorker does: pee�r.
>>
>>Or follow the precedent of the word for one who sees: "seer," hence
>>"peer."
>>
>>Also note that a shorter Oxford has both "seer" and the alternative
>>"see-er" for one who sees.
>>
it relates to Merlin (the magician), because of his ability, as a
'see-er' to foretell the future.
>>Using the latter precedent, I prefer "pee-er" for one who pees.
>
>As "pee-er" is not a pre-established word but one (re)invented on the
>fly, it is useful to ensure that it is distinguished from the existing
>noun "peer".
Well, it's a bit 'more polite' than the alternative, established word
'pisser'!
--
Ian
mm
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I can't recall ever having seen a dieresis on an e, but this would
>>be the place for one.
>>
>Wikipedia says:
>"The di�resis is a diacritic mark ( � ) used in English to indicate that
>two adjacent vowels are to be pronounced separately as in Bo�tes, No�l
>and na�ve, the names Zo� and Chlo� and words like re�nter and co�perate.
>Despite its long history in English, the di�resis is decreasingly common
If it's not common now, the computer will kill it. I know in general
how to put non-keyboard characters into my writing, but I only know
becuase I think it is important to know about such things, not
necesarily to do them And I think the method varies with which
program I'm using. Most people have no idea how to put in a dialysis
or any diacritical mark, or any non-keyboard character, and they're
not going to learn.
But I praise the New Yorker magazine for doing things right.
>in modern usage, though The New Yorker magazine is a prominent
>exception. Dutch uses the same mark in a similar way, (for example
>co�ffici�nt), but as with English there is now a preference for
>hyphenation - so zee�end (seaduck) is now spelled zee-eend."
--
Patok
>
> Most people have no idea how to put in a dialysis
>
specialists.
--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
John Dean
I wonder why there's no diacritic in 'soloist' and 'egoist' and that lot.
--
John Dean
Oxford