Why isn't "conject" a verb anymore?

[Roy Tremblay]

Why isn't "conject" a verb anymore?

I wanted to say "I conject this" rather than "I conjecture this" which
sounds odd so I'd have to change the sentence to "My conjecture is", but
what I really wanted to say was "I conject this".

Looking it up, I see "conject" as a verb is "obsolete":
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conject

Realizing that I could use a different choice of words, what I'm asking is
what is so very wrong with using "conject" as a verb?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Go right ahead. It will be understood, and you will be looked at funny.

[Peter Moylan]

I conjecture that "conject" fell out of use when "conjecture" became a
verb. That was in 1400, approximately, so "conject" sounds seriously
old-fashioned.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Richard Tobin]

In article <ookqed$5ft$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

How do you get from "obsolete" to "so very wrong"?

-- Richard

[Dingbat]

The noun started being used as a verb, making the (former) verb obsolete.


Here's a possible example of a noun becoming an adjective.

vasty https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/vasty

The adjective is now vast. Was the original vast a noun whence came an
adjective vasty? I don't know but it seems possible. Be that as it may,
vast is now only an adjective, not a noun.

[CDB]

On 9/5/2017 4:45 AM, Dingbat wrote:
> Roy Tremblay wrote:

>> Why isn't "conject" a verb anymore?

>> I wanted to say "I conject this" rather than "I conjecture this"
>> which sounds odd so I'd have to change the sentence to "My
>> conjecture is", but what I really wanted to say was "I conject
>> this".

"Take what you want", says God, "and pay for it."

>> Looking it up, I see "conject" as a verb is "obsolete":
>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conject

>> Realizing that I could use a different choice of words, what I'm
>> asking is what is so very wrong with using "conject" as a verb?

> The noun started being used as a verb, making the (former) verb
> obsolete.

It appears to have made the jump in French first (conjecturer).

> Here's a possible example of a noun becoming an adjective.

> vasty https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/vasty

> The adjective is now vast. Was the original vast a noun whence came
> an adjective vasty? I don't know but it seems possible. Be that as it
> may, vast is now only an adjective, not a noun.

"Cap'n, oh Cap'n, what name does ye give to yon giant expanse of empty
sea what lies afore us?"

"A vast, ye swab."

[Dingbat]

Where did that come from?
The vocative used to be "O"; i.e., "O Cap'n" rather than "oh Cap'n".


What's the Difference Between “O” and “Oh”?
http://mentalfloss.com/article/56582/whats-difference-between-o-and-oh

O Captain, my captain, O Pioneers, O Come All Ye Faithful, O Canada, O Brother Where Art Thou, O ye of little faith, O Christmas Tree. These are all examples of what’s known as the vocative O.

While “oh, man!” could mean a number of things, “O man!” means “hey, you there … you man over there.”

[David Kleinecke]

I think "Oh" is non-existent my kind of English. Of course everybody
around me knows it and might use it jocularly but if we want to speak
a vocative more elaborate than "Joe!" it would be "Hey, Joe".

I wonder how real English "Oh" has ever been. It must have had some
reality or it never would have been forced into service to create an
English vocative (which must have existed because Latin had a vocative.)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2017-09-05 15:43:42 +0000, David Kleinecke said:

> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 7:18:12 AM UTC-7, Dingbat wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 6:23:09 PM UTC+5:30, CDB wrote:
>>> On 9/5/2017 4:45 AM, Dingbat wrote:
>>>
>>>> vasty https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/vasty
>>>
>>>> The adjective is now vast. Was the original vast a noun whence came
>>>> an adjective vasty? I don't know but it seems possible. Be that as it
>>>> may, vast is now only an adjective, not a noun.
>>>
>>> "Cap'n, oh Cap'n, what name does ye give to yon giant expanse of empty
>>> sea what lies afore us?"
>>>
>>> "A vast, ye swab."
>>
>>
>> Where did that come from?
>> The vocative used to be "O"; i.e., "O Cap'n" rather than "oh Cap'n".
>>
>>
>> What's the Difference Between “O” and “Oh”?
>> http://mentalfloss.com/article/56582/whats-difference-between-o-and-oh
>>
>> O Captain, my captain, O Pioneers, O Come All Ye Faithful, O Canada, O
>> Brother Where Art Thou, O ye of little faith, O Christmas Tree. These
>> are all examples of what’s known as the vocative O.
>>
>> While “oh, man!” could mean a number of things, “O man!” means “hey,
>> you there … you man over there.”
>
> I think "Oh" is non-existent my kind of English. Of course everybody
> around me knows it and might use it jocularly but if we want to speak
> a vocative more elaborate than "Joe!" it would be "Hey, Joe".
>
> I wonder how real English "Oh" has ever been.

Very much alive in my English. It's what you say when someone tells
something, and you want to acknowledge that you heard but have nothing
particular to add.

> It must have had some
> reality or it never would have been forced into service to create an
> English vocative (which must have existed because Latin had a vocative.)

--
athel

[Jerry Friedman]

I often say and hear non-vocative "Oh" before decent or profane
expressions of annoyance.

Vocative "O" is archaic, in my experience.

> > It must have had some
> > reality or it never would have been forced into service to create an
> > English vocative (which must have existed because Latin had a vocative.)

--

Jerry Friedman

[Cheryl]

What about "O you idiot!" It's an expression of annoyance, but it's
directed at a person, just as "O Captain" is.

I admit that I would usually write it "Oh you idiot!"


--
Cheryl

[David Kleinecke]

It's a mere "You Idiot!" in my speech. But Athel is right. It
is the standard interjection for "I am surprised by that" and
it's the vocative that is obsolete (or whatever the word is for
"never was solete").

[spains...@yahoo.com]

"He conjected" is a verb in my BrE - and is different to "he
conjectured":

"Conjected" hints at reasoning.
"Conjectured" hints more at being "guessed".

[Dingbat]

I conject, therefore I am
vs.
I conjecture, therefore I might be
:-)

[Dingbat]

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 11:02:29 PM UTC+5:30, spains...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 1:17:23 AM UTC+1, Roy Tremblay wrote:
> > Why isn't "conject" a verb anymore?
> >
> > I wanted to say "I conject this" rather than "I conjecture this" which
> > sounds odd so I'd have to change the sentence to "My conjecture is", but
> > what I really wanted to say was "I conject this".
> >
> > Looking it up, I see "conject" as a verb is "obsolete":
> > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conject
> >
> > Realizing that I could use a different choice of words, what I'm asking is
> > what is so very wrong with using "conject" as a verb?
>
> "He conjected" is a verb in my BrE - and is different to "he
> conjectured":

They are the same length in speech
[kVndZekt@d] vs [kVndZektS@d]
... even though the latter is longer in writing.

[Robert Bannister]

It's "O" that has become non-existent in my English - roughly about the
time I stopped learning Latin and no longer needed to say "O table".

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Peter Moylan]

On 05/09/17 10:17, Roy Tremblay wrote:

> Looking it up, I see "conject" as a verb is "obsolete":
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conject

"Project" as a verb is alive and well, but we don't seem to have a word
for its opposite.

[CDB]

On 9/5/2017 10:18 AM, Dingbat wrote:

> CDB wrote:
>> Dingbat wrote:

>>> vasty https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/vasty

>>> The adjective is now vast. Was the original vast a noun whence
>>> came an adjective vasty? I don't know but it seems possible. Be
>>> that as it may, vast is now only an adjective, not a noun.

>> "Cap'n, oh Cap'n, what name does ye give to yon giant expanse of
>> empty sea what lies afore us?"

>> "A vast, ye swab."

> Where did that come from?> The vocative used to be "O"; i.e., "O
> Cap'n" rather than "oh Cap'n".

Still is, often. Did you notice "giant"?

> What's the Difference Between “O” and “Oh”?
> http://mentalfloss.com/article/56582/whats-difference-between-o-and-oh

If the American anthem begins with a vocative "O", who is being
addressed? There is no noun or pronoun available for the job, unless he
had a friend named "Say".

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/oh

> O Captain, my captain, O Pioneers, O Come All Ye Faithful, O Canada,
> O Brother Where Art Thou, O ye of little faith, O Christmas Tree.
> These are all examples of what’s known as the vocative O.

> While “oh, man!” could mean a number of things, “O man!” means “hey,
> you there … you man over there.”

Maybe the swabbie meant something from the first list you mention. That
would be my guess.

[occam]

On 05/09/2017 17:43, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 7:18:12 AM UTC-7, Dingbat wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 6:23:09 PM UTC+5:30, CDB wrote:
>>> On 9/5/2017 4:45 AM, Dingbat wrote:
>>>
>>>> vasty https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/vasty
>>>
>>>> The adjective is now vast. Was the original vast a noun whence came
>>>> an adjective vasty? I don't know but it seems possible. Be that as it
>>>> may, vast is now only an adjective, not a noun.
>>>
>>> "Cap'n, oh Cap'n, what name does ye give to yon giant expanse of empty
>>> sea what lies afore us?"
>>>
>>> "A vast, ye swab."
>>
>>
>> Where did that come from?
>> The vocative used to be "O"; i.e., "O Cap'n" rather than "oh Cap'n".
>>
>>
>> What's the Difference Between “O” and “Oh”?
>> http://mentalfloss.com/article/56582/whats-difference-between-o-and-oh
>>
>> O Captain, my captain, O Pioneers, O Come All Ye Faithful, O Canada, O Brother Where Art Thou, O ye of little faith, O Christmas Tree. These are all examples of what’s known as the vocative O.
>>
>> While “oh, man!” could mean a number of things, “O man!” means “hey, you there … you man over there.”
>
> I think "Oh" is non-existent my kind of English.

Here is a link from a neighbouring thread. (By the way, there is no 'my
kind of English' any more.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08dmr0d
('The story Oh!')

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 7:11:46 AM UTC-4, CDB wrote:

> If the American anthem begins with a vocative "O", who is being
> addressed? There is no noun or pronoun available for the job, unless he
> had a friend named "Say".

It addresses the reader of the poem, viz., "you."

Cf. "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair."

[CDB]

On 9/6/2017 10:09 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> CDB wrote:

>> If the American anthem begins with a vocative "O", who is being
>> addressed? There is no noun or pronoun available for the job,
>> unless he had a friend named "Say".

> It addresses the reader of the poem, viz., "you."

> Cf. "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair."

The only job "ye mighty" has there is that of being addressed.

The word "you" in the first line of the anthem, if that is what you are
referring to, is otherwise busy, being the subject of a verb. You
cannot have a vocative "o" without a dedicated noun or pronoun in the
accompanying text for it to govern. IMO this is the "oh" of strong
emotion, however spelled.

If Key had wanted a vocative he could have written "O friends".

[Jerry Friedman]

On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 5:11:46 AM UTC-6, CDB wrote:
> On 9/5/2017 10:18 AM, Dingbat wrote:
> > CDB wrote:
> >> Dingbat wrote:
>
> >>> vasty https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/vasty
>
> >>> The adjective is now vast. Was the original vast a noun whence
> >>> came an adjective vasty? I don't know but it seems possible. Be
> >>> that as it may, vast is now only an adjective, not a noun.
>
> >> "Cap'n, oh Cap'n, what name does ye give to yon giant expanse of
> >> empty sea what lies afore us?"
>
> >> "A vast, ye swab."
>
> > Where did that come from?> The vocative used to be "O"; i.e., "O
> > Cap'n" rather than "oh Cap'n".
>
> Still is, often. Did you notice "giant"?

I for one didn't notice it in any way that related to "O" and "oh".

> > What's the Difference Between “O” and “Oh”?
> > http://mentalfloss.com/article/56582/whats-difference-between-o-and-oh
>
> If the American anthem begins with a vocative "O", who is being
> addressed? There is no noun or pronoun available for the job, unless he
> had a friend named "Say".
>
> http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/oh

...

It's the "you" in "O say can you see...?" (In real life it was Key's
companion on the deck, John Skinner.)

I'd say not writing "O friend, say, can you see" was poetic license.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 10:06:54 AM UTC-6, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 5:11:46 AM UTC-6, CDB wrote:

...

> > If the American anthem begins with a vocative "O", who is being
> > addressed? There is no noun or pronoun available for the job, unless he
> > had a friend named "Say".
> >
> > http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/oh
> ...
>
> It's the "you" in "O say can you see...?" (In real life it was Key's
> companion on the deck, John Skinner.

And his other companion, Dr. William Beanes.

> )
>
> I'd say not writing "O friend

s

[Peter T. Daniels]

I just looked at what you were responding to. Arika Okrent (I know her) is a
serious linguist and knows what she's talking about.

Cleary, the whole disyllable "O say" is the vocative element (which has also
been interpreted as "José"). The entire first quatrain is a single sentence,
a question:

O say can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hail’d at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O’er the ramparts we watch’d were so gallantly streaming?

The next two lines affirm that you should be able to:

And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there,

while the last two lines reiterate the question:

O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

The second stanza is still uncertain for the first half

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?

and finally gives the definitive answer.

Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream,
’Tis the star-spangled banner—O long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

The third stanza goes on to a different question:

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?

but in only three lines, then answers:

Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Finally, it ends with the peroration that might have done better as the anthem
than the first stanza:

O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Recently the ambiguity in the fourth line was discussed: is "us" an indefinite
object -- the nation was made and preserved for us -- or a direct object --
the pow'r made us into and preserved us as a nation.

[Robert Bannister]

I'd say that it is a misspelling of "Oh, say can you see...?".

[Jerry Friedman]

Could be that too. And I'm not sure how standardized the spelling of
those words was in 1814.

--
Jerry Friedman

[CDB]

On 9/6/2017 12:06 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> Dingbat wrote:
>>> CDB wrote:
>>>> Dingbat wrote:

>>>>> vasty
>>>>> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/vasty

>>>>> The adjective is now vast. Was the original vast a noun
>>>>> whence came an adjective vasty? I don't know but it seems
>>>>> possible. Be that as it may, vast is now only an adjective,
>>>>> not a noun.

>>>> "Cap'n, oh Cap'n, what name does ye give to yon giant expanse
>>>> of empty sea what lies afore us?"

>>>> "A vast, ye swab."

>>> Where did that come from?> The vocative used to be "O"; i.e., "O
>>> Cap'n" rather than "oh Cap'n".

>> Still is, often. Did you notice "giant"?

> I for one didn't notice it in any way that related to "O" and "oh".

It appeared in my reply to the OP question of nouns used as adjectives;
"giant" is another such. I hoped to point it out before the line
disappeared.

>>> What's the Difference Between “O” and “Oh”?
>>> http://mentalfloss.com/article/56582/whats-difference-between-o-and-oh

If the American anthem begins with a vocative "O", who is being
>> addressed? There is no noun or pronoun available for the job,
>> unless he had a friend named "Say".

>> http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/oh
> ...

> It's the "you" in "O say can you see...?" (In real life it was
> Key's companion on the deck, John Skinner.)

> I'd say not writing "O friend, say, can you see" was poetic license.

The difference is that "friend" is a vocative usage there, since the
word has no other use in the sentence. The pronoun "you" isn't
available for that duty, since it is already in use as the subject of
the verb "see".

If he had written "O you, can you see ...", the first "you" would have
been vocative, if not poetic.

[CDB]

On 9/6/2017 2:21 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> CDB wrote:

>>>> If the American anthem begins with a vocative "O", who is being
>>>> addressed? There is no noun or pronoun available for the job,
>>>> unless he had a friend named "Say".

>>> It addresses the reader of the poem, viz., "you."

>>> Cf. "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair."

>> The only job "ye mighty" has there is that of being addressed.

>> The word "you" in the first line of the anthem, if that is what
>> you are referring to, is otherwise busy, being the subject of a
>> verb. You cannot have a vocative "o" without a dedicated noun or
>> pronoun in the accompanying text for it to govern. IMO this is the
>> "oh" of strong emotion, however spelled.

>> If Key had wanted a vocative he could have written "O friends".

> I just looked at what you were responding to. Arika Okrent (I know
> her) is a serious linguist and knows what she's talking about.

She follows her undemonstrated assertion
that the phrase is vocative with a series of examples of vocative uses,
all correct and every one containing a dedicated noun or pronoun serving
only as the thing addressed:

"Consider some other famous O’s: O Captain, my captain, O Pioneers, O

Come All Ye Faithful, O Canada, O Brother Where Art Thou, O ye of little
faith, O Christmas Tree."

In this respect they are all unlike "O(h) say, can you see?".

> Cleary, the whole disyllable "O say" is the vocative element (which
> has also been interpreted as "José"). The entire first quatrain is a
> single sentence, a question:

A vocative calls the name of some person or thing addressed. "José" is
a natural error, since the name is not used for anything else in the
sentence and is indeed a vocative.

> O say can you see, by the dawn’s early light, What so proudly we
> hail’d at the twilight’s last gleaming, Whose broad stripes and
> bright stars through the perilous fight O’er the ramparts we watch’d
> were so gallantly streaming?

[The rest of this has no relevance that I can detect to the question at
issue. I am willing to have one pointed out.]

[Ross]

OED on "oh":
---
Variant of O int., probably intended to express a longer or stronger sound. Compare Middle French, French oh! (1559).
In early use oh was interchangeable with o in all contexts. The latter
is now, however, almost entirely restricted to vocative uses and to
imperative, optative, or exclamatory phrases. Oh occurs especially
standing alone and in exclamations more detached from what follows,
but in the 17th and 18th centuries it often occurs also in imperative,
optative, or exclamatory phrases and in these uses has again become
common since the early 20th cent.
---
In other words: The two are historically the same word. The "oh"
spelling is more recent, first appearing in the 1500s. It is not
clear that the two spellings were _ever_ consistently distinguished
on a semantic or functional basis, though some people may have wished
them to be. The "o" spelling is now obsolete.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 9:28:24 PM UTC-6, CDB wrote:
> On 9/6/2017 12:06 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > CDB wrote:
> >> Dingbat wrote:
> >>> CDB wrote:
> >>>> Dingbat wrote:
>
> >>>>> vasty
> >>>>> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/vasty
>
> >>>>> The adjective is now vast. Was the original vast a noun
> >>>>> whence came an adjective vasty? I don't know but it seems
> >>>>> possible. Be that as it may, vast is now only an adjective,
> >>>>> not a noun.
>
> >>>> "Cap'n, oh Cap'n, what name does ye give to yon giant expanse
> >>>> of empty sea what lies afore us?"
>
> >>>> "A vast, ye swab."
>
> >>> Where did that come from?> The vocative used to be "O"; i.e., "O
> >>> Cap'n" rather than "oh Cap'n".
>
> >> Still is, often. Did you notice "giant"?
>
> > I for one didn't notice it in any way that related to "O" and "oh".
>
> It appeared in my reply to the OP question of nouns used as adjectives;
> "giant" is another such. I hoped to point it out before the line
> disappeared.

Ah. I was no longer paying attention to the "vast" discussion.

> >>> What's the Difference Between “O” and “Oh”?
> >>> http://mentalfloss.com/article/56582/whats-difference-between-o-and-oh
>
> If the American anthem begins with a vocative "O", who is being
> >> addressed? There is no noun or pronoun available for the job,
> >> unless he had a friend named "Say".
>
> >> http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/oh
> > ...
>
> > It's the "you" in "O say can you see...?" (In real life it was
> > Key's companion on the deck, John Skinner.)
>
> > I'd say not writing "O friend, say, can you see" was poetic license.
>
> The difference is that "friend" is a vocative usage there, since the
> word has no other use in the sentence. The pronoun "you" isn't
> available for that duty, since it is already in use as the subject of
> the verb "see".
>
> If he had written "O you, can you see ...", the first "you" would have
> been vocative, if not poetic.

Yes. I'm suggesting that Key meant "O (friends [or some other noun]),
say, can you see..." He couldn't keep both "friends" and "say", and
"say" alliterates nicely with "see". But I can see that it could
be the interjection "Expressing (according to intonation) appeal,
surprise, lament, etc." which, as Ross quoted the OED as saying, was
often spelled "O" at the time.

We may have to add this to the list of ambiguities in the first
verse of the "Banner".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Robert Bannister]

I think that is closer to the truth of the matter.

[CDB]

Ambiguities discourage "reforms" of the wording. There has been a
silly* fight about ours for years because of "[True patriot love in] all
thy sons [command]", put in in 1914 when their sons were going into
combat. It's harder to push for improvements when you're not sure what
the original means.

*Silly because pointless. The current round has revanchist Harperite
senators holding up the latest change, an uninspiring bill passed by the
Commons as the dying wish of one of their Members, making it "in all of
us command".

I say "pointless" because you can sing whatever words seem best to you.
The original English wording was "Thou dost in us command", and that's
what I sing when I'm not singing the French words (which have never been
reformed at all, in spite of being pretty clear).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Canada