Gender Consufion
Ron Hardin
Lynda Ann Ewen, PhD
Professor Emerita of Sociology, Marshall University
Co-Director, Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Gender in Appalachia
Editor, Series of ``Ethnicity and Gender in Appalachia,'' Ohio University Press
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/02/inebriated_hill.html
Isn't it Professor Emeritus? Professor is masculine.
The participle agrees with the noun in gender, not with its referent in sex.
``Study of Ethnicity and Gender'' perhaps has caused this.
Or it may be Hillbilly Latin.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Risenape
>
>A letter to Scott Adams ends
>
>Lynda Ann Ewen, PhD
>Professor Emerita of Sociology, Marshall University
>Co-Director, Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Gender in Appalachia
>Editor, Series of ``Ethnicity and Gender in Appalachia,'' Ohio University Press
>
>http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/02/inebriated_hill.html
>
>Isn't it Professor Emeritus? Professor is masculine.
>
>The participle agrees with the noun in gender, not with its referent in sex.
>
>``Study of Ethnicity and Gender'' perhaps has caused this.
>
>Or it may be Hillbilly Latin.
I think it's entirely self-inflected.
R.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> A letter to Scott Adams ends
>
> Lynda Ann Ewen, PhD
> Professor Emerita of Sociology, Marshall University
> Co-Director, Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Gender in Appalachia
> Editor, Series of ``Ethnicity and Gender in Appalachia,'' Ohio University Press
>
> http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/02/inebriated_hill.html
>
> Isn't it Professor Emeritus? Professor is masculine.
>
> The participle agrees with the noun in gender, not with its referent in sex.
>
> ``Study of Ethnicity and Gender'' perhaps has caused this.
>
> Or it may be Hillbilly Latin.
> On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
If anyone is consufed, it's you.
"Professor Emerita" has been in use as long as there have been retired
women professors.
The only error in that mini-bio is the "of" before the series name.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Padraic Brown
wrote:
>A letter to Scott Adams ends
>
>Lynda Ann Ewen, PhD
>Professor Emerita of Sociology, Marshall University
>Co-Director, Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Gender in Appalachia
>Editor, Series of ``Ethnicity and Gender in Appalachia,'' Ohio University Press
>
>http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/02/inebriated_hill.html
>
>Isn't it Professor Emeritus? Professor is masculine.
And if the professor in question were a man, "Professor Emeritus"
would be entirely appropriate. While it is entirely possible that
"Lynda Ann" is a man's name, it is extremely unlikely that the
professor in question is a man. Thus, emerita.
>The participle agrees with the noun in gender, not with its referent in sex.
Anyway, that's not the worst of it. It shòuld read:
Lynda Ann Ewen, PhD (Philosophiae Doctrix)
Professrix Emerita, etc.
Co-Directrix, etc.
Editrix, etc.
Padraic.
la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu
ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.
Ron Hardin
> >Isn't it Professor Emeritus? Professor is masculine.
>
> And if the professor in question were a man, "Professor Emeritus"
> would be entirely appropriate. While it is entirely possible that
> "Lynda Ann" is a man's name, it is extremely unlikely that the
> professor in question is a man. Thus, emerita.
>
> >The participle agrees with the noun in gender, not with its referent in sex.
>
> Anyway, that's not the worst of it. It shòuld read:
>
> Lynda Ann Ewen, PhD (Philosophiae Doctrix)
> Professrix Emerita, etc.
> Co-Directrix, etc.
> Editrix, etc.
Why does the gender of the noun imply anything about the sex of the referent?
These are Latin words, not English. That's their claim to importance, in fact.
jimbo...@gmail.com
Ron Hardin wrote:
> Padraic Brown wrote:
> > >Isn't it Professor Emeritus? Professor is masculine.
> >
> > And if the professor in question were a man, "Professor Emeritus"
> > would be entirely appropriate. While it is entirely possible that
> > "Lynda Ann" is a man's name, it is extremely unlikely that the
> > professor in question is a man. Thus, emerita.
> >
> > >The participle agrees with the noun in gender, not with its referent in sex.
> >
> > Anyway, that's not the worst of it. It shòuld read:
> >
> > Lynda Ann Ewen, PhD (Philosophiae Doctrix)
> > Professrix Emerita, etc.
> > Co-Directrix, etc.
> > Editrix, etc.
>
> Why does the gender of the noun imply anything about the sex of the referent?
> These are Latin words, not English. That's their claim to importance, in fact.
>
Nouns in English now have grammatical gender? Mirabile dictu!
Ron Hardin
>
> Ron Hardin wrote:
> > Padraic Brown wrote:
> > > >Isn't it Professor Emeritus? Professor is masculine.
> > >
> > > And if the professor in question were a man, "Professor Emeritus"
> > > would be entirely appropriate. While it is entirely possible that
> > > "Lynda Ann" is a man's name, it is extremely unlikely that the
> > > professor in question is a man. Thus, emerita.
> > >
> > > >The participle agrees with the noun in gender, not with its referent in sex.
> > >
> > >
> > > Lynda Ann Ewen, PhD (Philosophiae Doctrix)
> > > Professrix Emerita, etc.
> > > Co-Directrix, etc.
> > > Editrix, etc.
> >
> > Why does the gender of the noun imply anything about the sex of the referent?
> > These are Latin words, not English. That's their claim to importance, in fact.
> >
>
> Nouns in English now have grammatical gender? Mirabile dictu!
Professor -oris, m. 1 one who claims to be an expert in some art or science,
a teacher, professor.
Ekkehard Dengler
Ron Hardin schrieb:
> jimbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Nouns in English now have grammatical gender? Mirabile dictu!
>
> Professor -oris, m. 1 one who claims to be an expert in some art or
science,
> a teacher, professor.
That would make "who", "expert" and "a" masculine, too, though, wouldn't it?
Regards,
Ekkehard
Ron Hardin
The point of the title ``Professor Emeritus'' is that it's in Latin.
Ekkehard Dengler
Ron Hardin schrieb:
> Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
> >
> > Ron Hardin schrieb:
> > > jimbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Nouns in English now have grammatical gender? Mirabile dictu!
> > >
> > > Professor -oris, m. 1 one who claims to be an expert in some art or
> > science,
> > > a teacher, professor.
> >
> > That would make "who", "expert" and "a" masculine, too, though, wouldn't
it?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ekkehard
>
> The point of the title ``Professor Emeritus'' is that it's in Latin.
No, <"professors emeriti" site:edu> gets 83,600 hits on Google, while
<"professores emeriti" site:edu> gets five.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
> >
> > Ron Hardin schrieb:
> > > jimbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Nouns in English now have grammatical gender? Mirabile dictu!
> > >
> > > Professor -oris, m. 1 one who claims to be an expert in some art or
> > science,
> > > a teacher, professor.
> >
> > That would make "who", "expert" and "a" masculine, too, though, wouldn't it?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ekkehard
>
> The point of the title ``Professor Emeritus'' is that it's in Latin.
> On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
No, it is not. Emeritus and emerita have been English words since at
least 1750 and 1928 respectively (M-W).
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in sci.lang:
> Ron Hardin wrote:
[...]
>> The point of the title ``Professor Emeritus'' is that it's in Latin.
>> On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
> No, it is not. Emeritus and emerita have been English words since at
> least 1750 and 1928 respectively (M-W).
And the OED's 1928 quotation s.v. <emerita> is 'Professor Emerita
Helen Gray Cone, a graduate of Hunter, read an original poem',
from the NY Times.
Brian
Ron Hardin
That's fine, but I don't see why it's not just bad Latin.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Ron Hardin
>
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:15:06 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in sci.lang:
> >
> > > Ron Hardin wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >> The point of the title ``Professor Emeritus'' is that it's in Latin.
> >
> > >> On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
> >
> > > No, it is not. Emeritus and emerita have been English words since at
> > > least 1750 and 1928 respectively (M-W).
> >
> > And the OED's 1928 quotation s.v. <emerita> is 'Professor Emerita
> > Helen Gray Cone, a graduate of Hunter, read an original poem',
> > from the NY Times.
> >
> > Brian
>
> That's fine, but I don't see why it's not just bad Latin.
That is, they're reporting her title, but her title is bad Latin,
not English.
Brian M. Scott
<rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote in sci.lang:
> Ron Hardin wrote:
>> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:15:06 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in sci.lang:
>>> > Ron Hardin wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> >> The point of the title ``Professor Emeritus'' is that it's in Latin.
>>> >> On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
>>> > No, it is not. Emeritus and emerita have been English words since at
>>> > least 1750 and 1928 respectively (M-W).
>>> And the OED's 1928 quotation s.v. <emerita> is 'Professor Emerita
>>> Helen Gray Cone, a graduate of Hunter, read an original poem',
>>> from the NY Times.
>> That's fine, but I don't see why it's not just bad Latin.
> That is, they're reporting her title, but her title is bad Latin,
> not English.
It's both bad Latin and good English.
Peter T. Daniels
Egad, an Americanism in the OED!!
When was the first British woman professor, and when did she retire?
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<news:43FF79...@worldnet.att.net> in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
[...]
>> And the OED's 1928 quotation s.v. <emerita> is 'Professor Emerita
>> Helen Gray Cone, a graduate of Hunter, read an original poem',
>> from the NY Times.
> Egad, an Americanism in the OED!!
> When was the first British woman professor, and when did she retire?
The first one that I can find easily was the first at
Cambridge, Dorothy Garrod, who became Disney Professor of
Archaeology in 1937. The first one at Oxford was Ida Mann,
for whom a personal chair was created in 1945. However,
Agnes Headlam-Morley was the first woman to be appoined to a
full professorship at Oxford, in 1948. Kathleen Lonsdale
was the first one at University College, London, becoming
professor and head of the Dept. of Crystallography in 1949.
Brian
Ron Hardin
[ professor emerita ]
> > That is, they're reporting her title, but her title is bad Latin,
> > not English.
>
> It's both bad Latin and good English.
I think in English, it's Latin ; that is, it's meant to be a title in Latin,
as part of its claim to a scholarly aura.
Alas, there was a slip up, and it's bad Latin, and that adheres to the English.
If there was an interest in expressing the sex of the person, it would have been
professorette or professorin or professoress. The noun would carry the sex,
not the participle. Professorette emeritus.
But that's not what happened, because it actually is Latin.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Brian M. Scott
<rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote in
<news:43FF9D...@mindspring.com> in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
> [ professor emerita ]
>>> That is, they're reporting her title, but her title is bad Latin,
>>> not English.
>> It's both bad Latin and good English.
> I think in English, it's Latin ; [...]
Who cares? We know what your thoughts on such matters are
worth.
Peter T. Daniels
So there were no professors emeritae in Britain until perhaps the late
40s. (Garrod isn't remembered as well as Kenyon, so I don't associate
her with a site or a decade.)
Stefano MAC:GREGOR
> Isn't it Professor Emeritus? Professor is masculine.
>
> The participle agrees with the noun in gender, not with its referent in sex.
That's correct. If someone wants the term to be feminine, then change
=both= the noun and the adjective to feminine: professatrix emerita.
This half-and-half form is just plain illiterate, but from the comments
given about the professor's website, this is to be expected.
--
Stefano
Padraic Brown
wrote:
>Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>[ professor emerita ]
>
>> > That is, they're reporting her title, but her title is bad Latin,
>> > not English.
>>
>> It's both bad Latin and good English.
>
>I think in English, it's Latin ; that is, it's meant to be a title in Latin,
>as part of its claim to a scholarly aura.
Except that it's not -- in case you missed it, the plural was cited as
"professors emeriti", not "professores emeriti".
>Alas, there was a slip up, and it's bad Latin, and that adheres to the English.
>
>If there was an interest in expressing the sex of the person, it would have been
>professorette or professorin or professoress. The noun would carry the sex,
>not the participle. Professorette emeritus.
Now, thát's bad French! Pick your language sir and stick to it!
Anyway, English isn't too consistent with all that -ette, -ess and -ix
nonsense.
When was the last time you saw someone seriously referred to as a
Jewess? Professorette is not only bad French, but bad English and
worse Latin.
Grammar 5, Ron 0.
Padraic Brown
wrote:
>Padraic Brown wrote:
>> >Isn't it Professor Emeritus? Professor is masculine.
>>
>> And if the professor in question were a man, "Professor Emeritus"
>> would be entirely appropriate. While it is entirely possible that
>> "Lynda Ann" is a man's name, it is extremely unlikely that the
>> professor in question is a man. Thus, emerita.
>>
>> >The participle agrees with the noun in gender, not with its referent in sex.
>>
>> Anyway, that's not the worst of it. It shòuld read:
>>
>> Lynda Ann Ewen, PhD (Philosophiae Doctrix)
>> Professrix Emerita, etc.
>> Co-Directrix, etc.
>> Editrix, etc.
>
>Why does the gender of the noun imply anything about the sex of the referent?
Actually, it's the other way around. The sex of the teacher in
question determines whether "professor" is masculine or feminine, and
thus whether the honorific gets -us or -a.
The present example is "professor" which in this case refers to "Lynda
Ann". Like I said before, if "Lynda Ann" is a man, then "professor
emeritus" would be entirely appropriate. Apparently, this person is a
woman, so "professor emerita" is entirely appropriate.
>These are Latin words, not English.
You are entirely and unsurprisingly wrong. Don't let those diddly
endings fool you! They are 100% English words, all properly coshed,
bound, gagged and compelled to naturalise. If you're going to argue
that "emeritus" is a "Latin word" (i.e., that it must function as a
Latin word would within the Latin language), then you'll also have to
argue that "harry" is a French word and "she" is a Norse word.
What language is this sentence?:
"The professor harried the poor lass, for she'd donned a shirt and a
skirt quite out of sync with her sari."
>That's their claim to importance, in fact.
Correct: their _background_ is Latin, and Latin is fancy. That doesn't
mean that "emeritus" is a Latin word when used in conjunction with
"professor" or "pastor".
Ron Hardin
> >These are Latin words, not English.
>
> You are entirely and unsurprisingly wrong. Don't let those diddly
> endings fool you! They are 100% English words, all properly coshed,
> bound, gagged and compelled to naturalise. If you're going to argue
> that "emeritus" is a "Latin word" (i.e., that it must function as a
> Latin word would within the Latin language), then you'll also have to
> argue that "harry" is a French word and "she" is a Norse word.
But it is in fact functioning as a Latin word here. The ending
calculus is a nod to it, even if it gets it wrong. (``You can see,
far from being ignorant of Latin, I am quite convensant with it.'')
The effect is like a mixed metaphor, and that arises _in English_
by virtue of its being Latin, a galvanic stirring brought on by
the contact between English and Latin and the posturing involved.
That effect is a failure _in English_, a failure to hear that a cliche
has come to life.
Ron Hardin
> >If there was an interest in expressing the sex of the person, it would have been
> >professorette or professorin or professoress. The noun would carry the sex,
> >not the participle. Professorette emeritus.
>
> Now, thát's bad French! Pick your language sir and stick to it!
> Anyway, English isn't too consistent with all that -ette, -ess and -ix
> nonsense.
So you hear the effect of language contact in fact, and that happens in English
owing to its being French.
Douglas G. Kilday
"Padraic Brown" <elemtila...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>
> [...]
>
> Anyway, that's not the worst of it. It shòuld read:
>
> Lynda Ann Ewen, PhD (Philosophiae Doctrix)
> Professrix Emerita, etc.
> Co-Directrix, etc.
> Editrix, etc.
<Profestrix>. Cf. <tonstrix> 'female barber', not *<tonsrix>.
Douglas G. Kilday
"Ron Hardin" <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote ...
> Ron Hardin wrote:
> > Brian M. Scott wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > And the OED's 1928 quotation s.v. <emerita> is 'Professor Emerita
> > > Helen Gray Cone, a graduate of Hunter, read an original poem',
> > > from the NY Times.
> >
>
> That is, they're reporting her title, but her title is bad Latin,
> not English.
I believe you're right. That is, in 1928 a nitwit with little knowledge
assumed that Latin has group-inflection, and altered the whole expression
<professor emeritus> as a single word.
Nitwittery marches on, of course. In current "Quincy" knockoffs, coroners
use the debased phrase <pre-mortem>. And I haven't seen the true plural of
<persona non grata> in print for decades; so-called journalists today don't
have a clue and use an unmarked plural.
Neeraj Mathur
"Douglas G. Kilday" <fuf...@chorus.net> wrote in message
news:44004aaa$1...@newspeer2.tds.net...>> Anyway, that's not the worst of it. It shňuld read:
>>
>> Lynda Ann Ewen, PhD (Philosophiae Doctrix)
>> Professrix Emerita, etc.
>> Co-Directrix, etc.
>> Editrix, etc.
>
> <Profestrix>. Cf. <tonstrix> 'female barber', not *<tonsrix>.
Is this attested in any native-speaker-produced sources? How inflexible is
the idea that the -tor ending must be masculine?
Neeraj Mathur
Stefano MAC:GREGOR
> How inflexible is the idea that the -tor ending must be masculine?
Absolutely. The -tor suffix is for forming masculine-gender agents, as
-trix is the same for the feminine gender.
--
Stefano
Brian M. Scott
<fuf...@chorus.net> wrote in
<news:44004...@newspeer2.tds.net> in sci.lang:
[...]
> And I haven't seen the true plural of <persona non grata>
> in print for decades; so-called journalists today don't
> have a clue and use an unmarked plural.
I prefer another explanation: in current English it's
interpreted as an adjective.
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
If you are perchance referring to the postnominal position of the
adjective, you can't even use that: "emeritus professor" is often heard
as well.
J. W. Love
> But it is in fact functioning as a Latin word here.
Isn't it functioning as an English word in "Romance position" (not
unlike <heir apparent>, <house beautiful>, <queen regnant>, <sign
manual>, and so on)? And hey, look! the words of <professor emerita>
even have Latin suffixes!
In Latin, according to Lewis & Short, an emeritus (always masculine) is
'a soldier who has served out his time, a veteran, an exempt'. In a
transferred sense, the adjective (any gender) indicates 'that has
become unfit for service, worn out'. Are you arguing that professors
emeriti are 'unfit for service'?
Brian M. Scott
wrote in
<news:1140883387.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
Which ones? <g> (Worn out, now, ... .)
Brian
Risenape
>
>Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>[ professor emerita ]
>
>> > That is, they're reporting her title, but her title is bad Latin,
>> > not English.
>>
>> It's both bad Latin and good English.
>
>I think in English, it's Latin ; that is, it's meant to be a title in Latin,
>as part of its claim to a scholarly aura.
>
>Alas, there was a slip up, and it's bad Latin, and that adheres to the
English.
The woman was professor of gender studies. Deconstruction of
patriarchal terms like this, and substiting words like wimmin,
herstory, etc. is what they do. The title is probably designed
to make men confused and hostile.
R.
Peter T. Daniels
Please keep your slanders to yourself.
No one "substitutes" "herstory" for "history"; it's a convenient coinage
for a new field of study. And when's the last time you saw "wimmin"?
What evidence do you have that the woman in question used such terms?
What evidence do you have that she "probably" wanted "to make men
confused and hostile"?
Neeraj Mathur
"Stefano MAC:GREGOR" <esper...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140877000.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I instinctively twitch at this kind of statement; I have a vague feeling
that the distinction is more important for the writers of Latin Prose
Composition manuals (like those -abus endings, for things like 'filiabus',
which I've never met in a native-speaker-written text). I'm not saying it's
wrong, of course, because even the absence of any kind of attested
'profestrix' could prove that that wasn't the form that Latn speakers would
have used, but I do have my (personal, irrational?) doubts nevertheless.
Neeraj Mathur
mb
You could say it's wrong with some confidence: there were enough
alternate enough words for women (or men) who taught w/o having to use
the precise term. Same during the medieval period, when the term became
a fixed official title. Now that the change in society made the exact
feminine correspondence necessary the Romance languages struggle with
it without solving it. From leaving the masc. title as is, with or
without masc. article, to feminizing with -essa, all the way to the
ridiculous "professeure". Still not as ludicrous as the "professatrix"
monster.
Alan
"mb" <azyt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140919836.5...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"tor", but the word we're dealing with is "professor", not "profestor".
Perhaps, since the word comes from the verb "profitere", the feminine form
might be "profitrix"? (Not sure how the "t" managed to become "ss", but
that's also the case with "discussor" coming from "discutare" . . .
mb
> >> "Stefano MAC:GREGOR" <esper...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1140877000.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
As you show, the root is obvious from their derived nouns. Even then,
there is no "professatrix"
Padraic Brown
wrote:
>Padraic Brown wrote:
>> >If there was an interest in expressing the sex of the person, it would have been
>> >professorette or professorin or professoress. The noun would carry the sex,
>> >not the participle. Professorette emeritus.
>>
>> Now, thát's bad French! Pick your language sir and stick to it!
>> Anyway, English isn't too consistent with all that -ette, -ess and -ix
>> nonsense.
>
>So you hear the effect of language contact in fact,
Language contact is not in question. It's what takes a word like
"emeritus" and makes it and English word, having once been Latin.
Neeraj Mathur
"Alan" <in_fla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Py9Mf.54570$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> I, too, have my doubts. The "trix" is certainly the feminine form of
> "tor", but the word we're dealing with is "professor", not "profestor".
> Perhaps, since the word comes from the verb "profitere", the feminine form
> might be "profitrix"? (Not sure how the "t" managed to become "ss", but
> that's also the case with "discussor" coming from "discutare" . . .
The rule in Latin is that when two dentals collide, you get fricatives. It's
an 'internal sandhi' rule that is seen most often when a verb stem that ends
in a dental receives a suffix that begins with one. There are similar rules
in most Indo-European languages; it seems only Sanskrit was happy with two
dentals. It's often posited, then, that within Indo-European, a /tt/
sequence was rendered [tst] or something like that; by the time you get down
to Latin, an expected -tt- becomes -ss-. This in turn simplified to -s- in
certain environments (I'm trying to work it out from a table of principle
parts; I think the rule is that when the vowel before the -ss- is long, or
perhaps when that syllable is heavy even before the suffix is added, you
get -s-).
Examples:
1) percuti 'strike, beat, kill' - stem (per)cut-, p.p. percussus <
*percut-tus, agent percussor <*percut-tor etc.
2) video 'see' - stem vid-, p.p. vi:sus etc.
3) inclu:do 'shut in' - stem inclu:d- (< in+claud-), p.p. inclu:sus etc.
4) verto 'turn' - stem vert-, p.p. versus (< *verssus < *verttus) etc.
Neeraj Mathur
Alan
"Neeraj Mathur" wrote
> "Alan" wrote
Thanks. It's easy to see that dental collision is the reason for an
expected -tt- becoming -ss-. But how would the feminine agent form of such
words have been expressed? Would there have been reversion to the
theoretically dentally colliding -tt- to allow "profetrix"? Or would the
clumsy sounding "profestrix" have been the result?
mb
....
> Thanks. It's easy to see that dental collision is the reason for an
> expected -tt- becoming -ss-. But how would the feminine agent form of such
> words have been expressed? Would there have been reversion to the
> theoretically dentally colliding -tt- to allow "profetrix"? Or would the
> clumsy sounding "profestrix" have been the result?
Not clumsy, impossible. "Clumsy" would apply to all new-fangledisms
including professatrix, professoressa, professeuse, professeure etc.
All Romances have back-interpreted the verb's infinitive, from the
sigmatic derivatives professus / professor, into a form of "professare"
(which got its own semantic drift in some places). Possibly because
this foreign verb was very limited in use (contrary to the everyday
words listed by Mathur, which keep their dual form). In the medieval
Lat that had "professor" as a frequent word, women who taught were
characterized by derivates of docere and such.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
Then, Isabella was an inquistrix:-)
Alan
Setting aside for the moment any Romantic "back-interpretations" to a
non-existent infinitive of "professare" and, given the fact that the
infinitive (I believe) was actually "profiteri", how then
(**theoretically**) speaking, would the feminine agent have been formed?
mb
ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Then, Isabella was an inquistrix:-)
Inquis*i*trix is perfectly natural, where would the problem be with
that one?
Alan
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141005450....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Douglas G. Kilday wrote:
> "Padraic Brown" <elemtila...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Anyway, that's not the worst of it. It shňuld read:
> >
> > Lynda Ann Ewen, PhD (Philosophiae Doctrix)
> > Professrix Emerita, etc.
> > Co-Directrix, etc.
> > Editrix, etc.
>
> <Profestrix>. Cf. <tonstrix> 'female barber', not *<tonsrix>.
Then, Isabella was an inquistrix:-)
Thank you, Ranjit .... I'd been looking all over for feminine forms of the
words ending in [-sor] (discussor, confessor, etc.) to see how the feminine
was formed, and had had no luck. Ungainly as it seems, it looks like
"profestrix" would have been used (had there been a use for it). Looks like
the phenomenon of avoidance of dental collision pointed out Neeraj Mathur is
still at work, but with the slight variation that -tt- became -st-
instead of -ss-.
P.S. No references have revealed an actual "profestrix", but I found one for
"tonstrix":
http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=tonstrix&ending=
mb
> > ....
> >> Thanks. It's easy to see that dental collision is the reason for an
> >> expected -tt- becoming -ss-. But how would the feminine agent form of
> >> such
> >> words have been expressed? Would there have been reversion to the
> >> theoretically dentally colliding -tt- to allow "profetrix"? Or would the
> >> clumsy sounding "profestrix" have been the result?
> >
> > Not clumsy, impossible. "Clumsy" would apply to all new-fangledisms
> > including professatrix, professoressa, professeuse, professeure etc.
> > All Romances have back-interpreted the verb's infinitive, from the
> > sigmatic derivatives professus / professor, into a form of "professare"
> > (which got its own semantic drift in some places). Possibly because
> > this foreign verb was very limited in use (contrary to the everyday
> > words listed by Mathur, which keep their dual form). In the medieval
> > Lat that had "professor" as a frequent word, women who taught were
> > characterized by derivates of docere and such.
>
> Setting aside for the moment any Romantic "back-interpretations" to a
> non-existent infinitive of "professare" and, given the fact that the
> infinitive (I believe) was actually "profiteri", how then
> (**theoretically**) speaking, would the feminine agent have been formed?
Why set it aside, given the history of the word? Profiteri was way
back, and the back-formed professare is certainly existent as attested
in all continuations of Lat.
As for the theoretical question, given the perfect of profiteri, it
looks like the answer would be the inexistant professatrix.
Risenape
says...
>
>Risenape wrote:
>>
>> In article <43FF9D...@mindspring.com>, rhha...@mindspring.com says...
>> >
>> >Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> >
>> >[ professor emerita ]
>> >
>> >> > That is, they're reporting her title, but her title is bad Latin,
>> >> > not English.
>> >>
>> >> It's both bad Latin and good English.
>> >
>> >I think in English, it's Latin ; that is, it's meant to be a title in
Latin,
>> >as part of its claim to a scholarly aura.
>> >
>> >Alas, there was a slip up, and it's bad Latin, and that adheres to the
>> English.
>>
>> The woman was professor of gender studies. Deconstruction of
>> patriarchal terms like this, and substiting words like wimmin,
>> herstory, etc. is what they do. The title is probably designed
>> to make men confused and hostile.
>
>Please keep your slanders to yourself.
>
>No one "substitutes" "herstory" for "history"; it's a convenient coinage
>for a new field of study. And when's the last time you saw "wimmin"?
OK, I accept your point about "herstory".
>What evidence do you have that the woman in question used such terms?
None. I was referring to gender studies academics as a group.
>What evidence do you have that she "probably" wanted "to make men
>confused and hostile"?
None, but I didn't claim that.
My post was obviously facetious. However my point, poorly made
I agree, was that there are social and polemical dimensions of
language use. Terms such as "Professor Emerita" can be
adopted by universities (and this one, Marshal, which teaches both
Latin and English) without that term necessarily following traditional
grammar. Whether the term is Latin or English is not necessarily
something that has bothered the committee that invented it, and so
there are no grounds for saying that the title is "wrong".
R.
Alan
"mb" wrote
> Alan wrote:
>> "mb" wrote
>> > ....
>> >> Thanks. It's easy to see that dental collision is the reason for an
>> >> expected -tt- becoming -ss-. But how would the feminine agent form of
>> >> such
>> >> words have been expressed? Would there have been reversion to the
>> >> theoretically dentally colliding -tt- to allow "profetrix"? Or would
>> >> the
>> >> clumsy sounding "profestrix" have been the result?
>> >
>> > Not clumsy, impossible. "Clumsy" would apply to all new-fangledisms
>> > including professatrix, professoressa, professeuse, professeure etc.
>> > All Romances have back-interpreted the verb's infinitive, from the
>> > sigmatic derivatives professus / professor, into a form of "professare"
>> > (which got its own semantic drift in some places). Possibly because
>> > this foreign verb was very limited in use (contrary to the everyday
>> > words listed by Mathur, which keep their dual form). In the medieval
>> > Lat that had "professor" as a frequent word, women who taught were
>> > characterized by derivates of docere and such.
>>
>> Setting aside for the moment any Romantic "back-interpretations" to a
>> non-existent infinitive of "professare" and, given the fact that the
>> infinitive (I believe) was actually "profiteri", how then
>> (**theoretically**) speaking, would the feminine agent have been formed?
>
> Why set it aside, given the history of the word? Profiteri was way
> back, and the back-formed professare is certainly existent as attested
> in all continuations of Lat.
I just thought, since we were dealing with Latin, and not "continuations of
Latin", that it would be a good idea not to include Romantic "back
interpretations" as part of the discussion.
>
> As for the theoretical question, given the perfect of profiteri, it
> looks like the answer would be the inexistant professatrix.
Actually, it would seem more likely that the answer would be "profestrix",
on the model of "tonsor" / "tonstrix", as had been pointed out by Ranjit.
Javi
Also cf. "defenstrix" (in Cicero).
--
Javi
Javi
[snip]
> P.S. No references have revealed an actual "profestrix", but I found one for
> "tonstrix":
> http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=tonstrix&ending=
"Tonstrix" appears in Plautus (Truculentus, v. 791) and Martial (II, 17, 1).
--
Javi
mb
Alan wrote:
> "mb" wrote
> > Alan wrote:
> > Why set it aside, given the history of the word? Profiteri was way
> > back, and the back-formed professare is certainly existent as attested
> > in all continuations of Lat.
>
> I just thought, since we were dealing with Latin, and not "continuations of
> Latin", that it would be a good idea not to include Romantic "back
> interpretations" as part of the discussion.
What "Latin"? Of when? When does profiteor used in the modern meaning?
When does it become a title? What do you mean by "romantic"?
> >
> > As for the theoretical question, given the perfect of profiteri, it
> > looks like the answer would be the inexistant professatrix.
>
> Actually, it would seem more likely that the answer would be "profestrix",
> on the model of "tonsor" / "tonstrix", as had been pointed out by Ranjit.
So, "tonsus" and "professus" are the same?
Herman Rubin
>[...]
The way I read it, I would take "persona" as a noun and
"non grata" as an adjective (really an adverb modifying
an adjective). I am not sure if my plural is correct,
as I am not fully up on Latin grammar, not having taken
the language, but I would use <personae non grata> for
the plural.
>Brian
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Stefano MAC:GREGOR
> The way I read it, I would take "persona" as a noun and
> "non grata" as an adjective (really an adverb modifying
> an adjective). I am not sure if my plural is correct,
> as I am not fully up on Latin grammar, not having taken
> the language, but I would use <personae non grata> for
> the plural.
The rest of us would use "personae non gratae".
--
Stefano
Padraic Brown
<esper...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Or for those of us as speak English rather than Latin, "persona non
gratas". Or a little more posh: "personas non grata".
Alan
"mb" wrote
> Alan wrote:
>> "mb" wrote
>> > Alan wrote:
>> > Why set it aside, given the history of the word? Profiteri was way
>> > back, and the back-formed professare is certainly existent as attested
>> > in all continuations of Lat.
>>
>> I just thought, since we were dealing with Latin, and not "continuations
>> of
>> Latin", that it would be a good idea not to include Romantic "back
>> interpretations" as part of the discussion.
>
> What "Latin"? Of when? When does profiteor used in the modern meaning?
> When does it become a title? What do you mean by "romantic"?
What I mean by "romantic" is what I assumed you meant when you used the word
when you stated: "All Romances have back-interpreted the verb's infinitive",
e.g. languages such as Italian and Spanish which have indeed
"back-interpreted" the infinitive form to be "professare" and "profesar"
respectively. The Latin infinitive never changed. You will not find
"professare" in any Latin dictionary of any period.
>
>> >
>> > As for the theoretical question, given the perfect of profiteri, it
>> > looks like the answer would be the inexistant professatrix.
>>
>> Actually, it would seem more likely that the answer would be
>> "profestrix",
>> on the model of "tonsor" / "tonstrix", as had been pointed out by Ranjit.
>
> So, "tonsus" and "professus" are the same?
"Tonsus" and "professus" are to be considered the "same" insofar as both are
the past participles of infinitives which contained a dental element which,
as had been pointed out by Neeraj Mathur, changes to and /s/ or /ss/ in
order to avoid a "dental collision" with another dental. In these cases,
the collision would have resulted by adding the agent form of /-tor/.
Ranjit Matthews gave us the example of "tondere" (past participle "tonsus",
yielding "tonsor" and "tonstrix" for the masculine and feminine agent
forms).
Javi recently gave another example: "defendere" (past participle
"defensus", yielding "defensor" and "defenstrix" for m & f agent forms.)
Other examples include:
assidere (inf.) ---> assessus (p.p.) ---> assessor / assestrix
persuadere (inf.) ---> persuasus (p.p.) ---> persuasor / persuastix
Following the above models, I think it logical to assume that:
profitere (inf.) ---> professus (p.p.) ---> professor / profestrix
mb
Alan wrote:
> "mb" wrote
> >> I just thought, since we were dealing with Latin, and not "continuations
> >> of
> >> Latin", that it would be a good idea not to include Romantic "back
> >> interpretations" as part of the discussion.
...
> e.g. languages such as Italian and Spanish which have indeed
> "back-interpreted" the infinitive form to be "professare" and "profesar"
> respectively. The Latin infinitive never changed. You will not find
> "professare" in any Latin dictionary of any period.
But it changed; no doubt about that. Dictionaries are about written
Lat. in a diglossic
situation.
.....
> Following the above models, I think it logical to assume that:
> profitere (inf.) ---> professus (p.p.) ---> professor / profestrix
Slight misunderstanding here. Of course "profestrix", [re]constructed
on the antique
model, would be right for the old verb. In fact, it is quite frequently
used nowadays,
esp. by profestrices of Latin, as in:
http://www.davidson.edu/academic/classics/neumann/LAT350/Lat350.html
http://www.latin.org/latin/naills/members.html
http://www.filologiaclasicacadiz.com/prog/PN/lat/fonetica.htm
http://www.progettovidio.it/latinocronaca70.asp
and a lot of others.
That's not in doubt; I was all in my train of thought (as you were all
in yours). Just
hypothesizing that when "professor" became the modern title, with a
meaning that was
marginal for the old profiteor, things had become substantially
different, and not only
because of the men-only society. Coining the book-perfect profestrix at
that time would
have been a bit awkward. With the euphonic vowel of the modern tongue
it would have
sounded "ignorant". The awkwardness continues in all Romances, and
"profestrix" on the Web site texts looks OK only in a dead Ciceronian
Latin laboriously reconstructed.