| Author |
Message |
postr
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:29 pm
Post subject: Is "predominately" a word? |
|
|
I've been reading a book which uses the word "predominately"
- if that is indeed a word. I always thought the word was
"predominantly." The book is full of illiteracies such as
"to steel someone's TV" and "how they will fair," so I
wonder if "predominately" is just another illiteracy.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Is "predominately" a word? |
|
|
"postr" <postr@mail.ev1.net> wrote in message news:415a7f4e.328.41@news2...
| Quote: | I've been reading a book which uses the word "predominately"
- if that is indeed a word. I always thought the word was
"predominantly." The book is full of illiteracies such as
"to steel someone's TV" and "how they will fair," so I
wonder if "predominately" is just another illiteracy.
|
I suspect that you're the sort of person who would insist that "ain't,"
"gonna," and "wunst" are not words. But they are, indeed, words. They are
examples of nonstandard usages, so the question becomes "Is 'predominately'
a nonstandard usage or a standard one?" I'd say it's a standard usage, given
that it is listed under the entry for "predominate" in the *Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary* at
ttp://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=predominately
and is listed in the *Compact Oxford English Dictionary* as a separate entry
at
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/predominately?view=uk
and in neither dictionary is given the label "nonstandard" or "slang" or
"regional."
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan OBrien
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:22 am
Post subject: Re: Is "predominately" a word? |
|
|
"postr" <postr@mail.ev1.net> wrote in message news:415a7f4e.328.41@news2...
| Quote: | I've been reading a book which uses the word "predominately"
- if that is indeed a word. I always thought the word was
"predominantly." The book is full of illiteracies such as
"to steel someone's TV" and "how they will fair," so I
wonder if "predominately" is just another illiteracy.
|
What is the book?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Martin Ambuhl
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 3:41 am
Post subject: Re: Is "predominately" a word? |
|
|
postr wrote:
| Quote: | I've been reading a book which uses the word "predominately"
- if that is indeed a word. I always thought the word was
"predominantly." The book is full of illiteracies such as
"to steel someone's TV" and "how they will fair," so I
wonder if "predominately" is just another illiteracy.
|
It has been used by accomplished writers of English since at least 1594,
so I would doubt that it "is just another illiteracy." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bloke
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 10:32 am
Post subject: Re: Is "predominately" a word? |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:29:44 -0000, "postr" <postr@mail.ev1.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | I've been reading a book which uses the word "predominately"
- if that is indeed a word. I always thought the word was
"predominantly." The book is full of illiteracies such as
"to steel someone's TV" and "how they will fair," so I
wonder if "predominately" is just another illiteracy.
|
Steeling a TV is the ancient practice of placing a steel shell around
a TV so that one's children can no longer watch low-budget cartoons.
It was commonly performed by the village blacksmith in the days before
computer controlled robots.
As for how one fairs, or the verb "to fair", I imagine reference is
being made to 'their' ability to make the most of the village fair -
an annual celebration, usually held after harvest. Some folks are
better fairers than others; often the benchmark was an ability to
drink plenty but carouse till the morning without falling over.
Bloke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel James
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:59 pm
Post subject: Re: Is "predominately" a word? |
|
|
In article news:<PMednTlMsfclEsfcRVn-rw@gbronline.com>, Raymond S. Wise
wrote something I just had to take issue with:
| Quote: | I suspect that you're the sort of person who would insist that "ain't,"
"gonna," and "wunst" are not words. But they are, indeed, words.
|
"Word" can mean many things, and means different things to different
people in different contexts. To some a word has to be pronounceable. To
others a word has to have a recognized (or, at least, recognizeable)
meaning. In some contexts "gnmph", "spuffle", "splurgulatrix", and
"toast" are all equally good words. In other contexts a word is a 16-bit
binary number. None of this makes 0100111101111001 Standard English.
I think it was pretty clear from the question that the poster was asking
whether "predominately" was considered Standard English.
Now, I have to say that if I were editing a piece of text I would
probably "correct" it to "predominantly" without a second thought ... but
according to the NSOED "predominately" has beed a recognized alternative
for "predominantly" (for which it is thought originally to have been an
error) since the 16th century.
That doesn't mean that you would gain any marks for using it in
schoolwork, though. I'd definitely rate it as "non standard".
BTW: What does "wunst" mean?
Cheers,
Daniel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Durkin
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:14 pm
Post subject: Re: Is "predominately" a word? |
|
|
"Daniel James" <wastebasket@nospam.aaisp.org> wrote in message
news:VA.000008da.2e170d8e@nospam.aaisp.org...
| Quote: | In article news:<PMednTlMsfclEsfcRVn-rw@gbronline.com>, Raymond S. Wise
wrote something I just had to take issue with:
I suspect that you're the sort of person who would insist that "ain't,"
"gonna," and "wunst" are not words. But they are, indeed, words.
"Word" can mean many things, and means different things to different
people in different contexts. To some a word has to be pronounceable. To
others a word has to have a recognized (or, at least, recognizeable)
meaning. In some contexts "gnmph", "spuffle", "splurgulatrix", and
"toast" are all equally good words. In other contexts a word is a 16-bit
binary number. None of this makes 0100111101111001 Standard English.
I think it was pretty clear from the question that the poster was asking
whether "predominately" was considered Standard English.
Now, I have to say that if I were editing a piece of text I would
probably "correct" it to "predominantly" without a second thought ... but
according to the NSOED "predominately" has beed a recognized alternative
for "predominantly" (for which it is thought originally to have been an
error) since the 16th century.
That doesn't mean that you would gain any marks for using it in
schoolwork, though. I'd definitely rate it as "non standard".
BTW: What does "wunst" mean?
|
That would represent an attempt by a semi-literate person to write the word
"oncet", which would be another attempt to reproduce a regional (or
non-literate, childish, southern, hillbilly, old-timey, redneck, hayseed)
version of "once", as a standalone adverb. It would never appear in "Wunst
upon a time" (I think that it might be "Wuns" in that situation). But it
might appear in the warning or plaintive wish, "Just wunst --once-- "I would
like you to answer my question." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:36 am
Post subject: Re: Is "predominately" a word? |
|
|
"Pat Durkin" <durkinpa@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:ppV6d.5352$ls6.2628@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Quote: |
"Daniel James" <wastebasket@nospam.aaisp.org> wrote in message
news:VA.000008da.2e170d8e@nospam.aaisp.org...
In article news:<PMednTlMsfclEsfcRVn-rw@gbronline.com>, Raymond S. Wise
wrote something I just had to take issue with:
I suspect that you're the sort of person who would insist that
"ain't,"
"gonna," and "wunst" are not words. But they are, indeed, words.
"Word" can mean many things, and means different things to different
people in different contexts. To some a word has to be pronounceable. To
others a word has to have a recognized (or, at least, recognizeable)
meaning. In some contexts "gnmph", "spuffle", "splurgulatrix", and
"toast" are all equally good words. In other contexts a word is a 16-bit
binary number. None of this makes 0100111101111001 Standard English.
I think it was pretty clear from the question that the poster was asking
whether "predominately" was considered Standard English.
Now, I have to say that if I were editing a piece of text I would
probably "correct" it to "predominantly" without a second thought ...
but
according to the NSOED "predominately" has beed a recognized alternative
for "predominantly" (for which it is thought originally to have been an
error) since the 16th century.
That doesn't mean that you would gain any marks for using it in
schoolwork, though. I'd definitely rate it as "non standard".
BTW: What does "wunst" mean?
That would represent an attempt by a semi-literate person to write the
word
"oncet", which would be another attempt to reproduce a regional (or
non-literate, childish, southern, hillbilly, old-timey, redneck, hayseed)
version of "once", as a standalone adverb. It would never appear in
"Wunst
upon a time" (I think that it might be "Wuns" in that situation). But it
might appear in the warning or plaintive wish, "Just wunst --once-- "I
would
like you to answer my question."
|
"Wunst" might indeed by written by a semi-literate person, but it is also
the spelling which literate persons should prefer, so that I would use it
myself when representing the dialectal use in question. There is too much
danger of "oncet" being mispronounced like "onset." "Wunst" is thus a
pronunciation spelling, not an example of eye dialect.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 11:30 am
Post subject: Re: Is "predominately" a word? |
|
|
"Daniel James" <wastebasket@nospam.aaisp.org> wrote in message
news:VA.000008da.2e170d8e@nospam.aaisp.org...
| Quote: | In article news:<PMednTlMsfclEsfcRVn-rw@gbronline.com>, Raymond S. Wise
wrote something I just had to take issue with:
I suspect that you're the sort of person who would insist that "ain't,"
"gonna," and "wunst" are not words. But they are, indeed, words.
"Word" can mean many things, and means different things to different
people in different contexts. To some a word has to be pronounceable. To
others a word has to have a recognized (or, at least, recognizeable)
meaning. In some contexts "gnmph", "spuffle", "splurgulatrix", and
"toast" are all equally good words. In other contexts a word is a 16-bit
binary number. None of this makes 0100111101111001 Standard English.
I think it was pretty clear from the question that the poster was asking
whether "predominately" was considered Standard English.
|
I've come to the conclusion that the use of "a word" or "a real word" in
alt.english.usage and alt.usage.english for what I would call "a standard
English usage" is as questionable as using "galaxy" in a Usenet newsgroup
frequented by amateur astronomers when one has in mind a "solar system." The
person using "galaxy" in that fashion may in fact know what a "galaxy" is
according to astronomical terminology, and may be aware that he is using a
popular usage which is very different, but it is also quite possible that he
is confused as to what constitutes a "galaxy."
A person who uses "a word" or "a real word" in this newsgroup may have in
mind "a standard English usage" but it is also quite possible that he does
not understand that the English language is divided into standard dialects
and nonstandard dialects. He may indeed think that "ain't," "gonna," and
"wunst" are not English words--and I mean the English language, not a
standard dialect of English.
Similarly, a person who uses "slang" in these newsgroups may have a good
understanding of what linguists and lexicographers mean by slang, and may be
using "slang" in the common sense of "informal language," or he may be
utterly ignorant of what linguists and lexicographers mean by "slang" and
may not understand the difference between informal usage and slang.
It's my opinion that many of the common terms which ordinary people use when
speaking of language distort their thinking about language. I recently had
the experience of discussing the double negative (negative concord) with a
friend of mine in a French conversation group. I tried to convince her that
"I can't get no satisfaction" does not mean that the person is getting
satisfaction, that two negatives do not make a positive in dialects which
habitually use the double negative. I made it clear that I was talking about
a nonstandard dialect, and I cannot believe that she would actually
understand a stranger saying "I ain't got no dog" to mean that the fellow
had a dog, but I believe that the usage of such terms as "bad English" has
distorted her thinking about nonstandard English, to the extent that, in
some rather mysterious way, she believes that two negatives make a positive
even in dialects which use the double negative. If she had been taught about
standard and nonstandard dialects, and had been taught about negative
concord, and, most importantly, had been taught that all dialects spoken by
native speakers of a language, without exception, follow rules of grammar,
she would have a less mixed-up view of the whole matter.
| Quote: |
Now, I have to say that if I were editing a piece of text I would
probably "correct" it to "predominantly" without a second thought ... but
according to the NSOED "predominately" has beed a recognized alternative
for "predominantly" (for which it is thought originally to have been an
error) since the 16th century.
That doesn't mean that you would gain any marks for using it in
schoolwork, though. I'd definitely rate it as "non standard".
BTW: What does "wunst" mean?
|
A dialectal variant of "once," as another person in this thread answered.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel James
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 7:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Is "predominately" a word? |
|
|
In article news:<ppV6d.5352$ls6.2628@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Pat
Durkin wrote:
| Quote: | BTW: What does "wunst" mean?
That would represent an attempt by a semi-literate person to write the word
"oncet", which would be another attempt to reproduce a regional ...
version of "once" ...
|
Zounds! Thanks for that. I'm sure I could have worked that out in context,
but never without.
Cheers,
Daniel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 7:06 am
Post subject: Re: Is "predominately" a word? |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:36:51 -0500 "Raymond S.
Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> posted:
| Quote: | "Pat Durkin" <durkinpa@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:ppV6d.5352$ls6.2628@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Daniel James" <wastebasket@nospam.aaisp.org> wrote in message
news:VA.000008da.2e170d8e@nospam.aaisp.org...
In article news:<PMednTlMsfclEsfcRVn-rw@gbronline.com>, Raymond S. Wise
wrote something I just had to take issue with:
I suspect that you're the sort of person who would insist that
"ain't,"
"gonna," and "wunst" are not words. But they are, indeed, words.
"Word" can mean many things, and means different things to different
people in different contexts. To some a word has to be pronounceable. To
others a word has to have a recognized (or, at least, recognizeable)
meaning. In some contexts "gnmph", "spuffle", "splurgulatrix", and
"toast" are all equally good words. In other contexts a word is a 16-bit
binary number. None of this makes 0100111101111001 Standard English.
I think it was pretty clear from the question that the poster was asking
whether "predominately" was considered Standard English.
Now, I have to say that if I were editing a piece of text I would
probably "correct" it to "predominantly" without a second thought ...
but
according to the NSOED "predominately" has beed a recognized alternative
for "predominantly" (for which it is thought originally to have been an
error) since the 16th century.
|
And now they don't think it was an error? Were there two words that
mean the same thing but one ended in -ate and the other in -ant? Is
there any other pair like that? I don't think so. -ate means it is a
verb and -ant means it is an adjective. One cannot make adverbs
directly out of verbs.
Some people slur over the second 'n'. I'm sure I do or at least come
close to doing so sometimes. But they should still know how to spell
when they write.
| Quote: | That doesn't mean that you would gain any marks for using it in
schoolwork, though. I'd definitely rate it as "non standard".
|
Good.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Odysseus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 8:04 am
Post subject: Re: Is "predominately" a word? |
|
|
meirman wrote:
| Quote: |
In alt.english.usage on Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:36:51 -0500 "Raymond S.
Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> posted:
|
[snip]
| Quote: | Now, I have to say that if I were editing a piece of text I would
probably "correct" it to "predominantly" without a second thought ...
but
according to the NSOED "predominately" has beed a recognized alternative
for "predominantly" (for which it is thought originally to have been an
error) since the 16th century.
And now they don't think it was an error? Were there two words that
mean the same thing but one ended in -ate and the other in -ant? Is
there any other pair like that? I don't think so. -ate means it is a
verb and -ant means it is an adjective. One cannot make adverbs
directly out of verbs.
Quite a few Latin-derived adjectives end in -ate; while I can't think |
of an -ate/-ant pair offhand, I'd expect the former to indicate a
quality and the latter an agency (if that makes any sense). Cf. the
approximate pair "cognate" & "cognizant".
--
Odysseus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 10:46 am
Post subject: Re: Is "predominately" a word? |
|
|
"meirman" <meirman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:74kul05fnl30nsj717be704lo6mqb1d8nf@4ax.com...
| Quote: | In alt.english.usage on Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:36:51 -0500 "Raymond S.
Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> posted:
"Pat Durkin" <durkinpa@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:ppV6d.5352$ls6.2628@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Daniel James" <wastebasket@nospam.aaisp.org> wrote in message
news:VA.000008da.2e170d8e@nospam.aaisp.org...
In article news:<PMednTlMsfclEsfcRVn-rw@gbronline.com>, Raymond S.
Wise
wrote something I just had to take issue with:
I suspect that you're the sort of person who would insist that
"ain't,"
"gonna," and "wunst" are not words. But they are, indeed, words.
"Word" can mean many things, and means different things to different
people in different contexts. To some a word has to be pronounceable.
To
others a word has to have a recognized (or, at least, recognizeable)
meaning. In some contexts "gnmph", "spuffle", "splurgulatrix", and
"toast" are all equally good words. In other contexts a word is a
16-bit
binary number. None of this makes 0100111101111001 Standard English.
I think it was pretty clear from the question that the poster was
asking
whether "predominately" was considered Standard English.
Now, I have to say that if I were editing a piece of text I would
probably "correct" it to "predominantly" without a second thought ...
but
according to the NSOED "predominately" has beed a recognized
alternative
for "predominantly" (for which it is thought originally to have been
an
error) since the 16th century.
And now they don't think it was an error? Were there two words that
mean the same thing but one ended in -ate and the other in -ant? Is
there any other pair like that? I don't think so. -ate means it is a
verb and -ant means it is an adjective. One cannot make adverbs
directly out of verbs.
|
But the adjective "predominate" does not come from the verb "predominate"
but from the Middle Latin "prędominatus," past participle of "prędominare."
(Source: *The Century Dictionary,* www.century-dictionary.com ). Thus when
"predominately" was coined, it was an adverb fashioned from an English
adjective.
| Quote: |
Some people slur over the second 'n'. I'm sure I do or at least come
close to doing so sometimes. But they should still know how to spell
when they write.
That doesn't mean that you would gain any marks for using it in
schoolwork, though. I'd definitely rate it as "non standard".
Good.
|
As I mentioned in another post, "predominately" is given as a separate entry
in the *Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary* and the *Compact Oxford English
Dictionary.* It appears as a subentry (under the entry for the verb
"predominate") in the AHD4 and the *Encarta World English Dictionary,* North
American ed. In none of those dictionaries is it labeled "nonstandard" or
"slang" or "regional." This is sufficient for me to consider it to be a
standard usage.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel James
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 5:01 pm
Post subject: Re: Is "predominately" a word? |
|
|
In article news:<74kul05fnl30nsj717be704lo6mqb1d8nf@4ax.com>, Meirman
wrote:
| Quote: | Were there two words that mean the same thing but one ended
in -ate and the other in -ant?
|
Given the dates shown by the dictionary ... I'm going by the NSOED
which says "predominantly" is mid C16th and "predominately" is late
C16th ... there was originally one word ("predominantly") formed in
the usual sort of way from the adjective "predominant", but a second
word (formed, apparently, from the adjective "predominate") soon came
to be used alongside it.
The formation of "predominately" from "predominate" (adj) is perfectly
fine. The issue is whether we should give our blessings to the
introduction of "predominate" as an adjective when "predominant" had
apparently already existed for a generation or so (not that it makes
much difference after 500 years).
| Quote: | -ate means it is a verb and -ant means it is an adjective. One
cannot make adverbs directly out of verbs.
|
No. There *are* adjectives -- perfectly good ones -- that end in
"-ate" ... "accurate" for example. The NSOED suggests that the
exemplars for the formation of "predominate" might have been words
such as "moderate" or "temperate". The problem is not that the
formation of "predominate" in this was is wrong, or in any way out of
the ordinary. It is simply that it was unnecessary, as a perfectly
good word "predominant" was already in use.
English being the creature she is, there are also nouns ending in
"-ant", but these are related -- chicken and egg fashion -- to
identical adjectival forms. There are also nouns ending in "-ate", and
sometimes even nouns ending in both "-ate" and "-ant" derived from the
same root. [My chemists' background reminds me that the verb
"precipitate" gives rise to "precipitate" (n. a solid that results
from a reaction in a liquid), "precipitate" (adj. the property of
being a precipitate), "precipitant" (n. a substance or process that
causes a preipitate to form) and "precipitant" (adj. the property of
being a precipitant). This is all further confused (according to the
dictionary) by "precipitant" (adj) also being used with the same
meaning as "precipitate" (adj) ... though I have never heard it so
used, and suspect the usage of being archaic.]
I agree that it's not common to form an adverb directly from a verb --
in fact I can't think of any examples off the top of my head -- which
isn't too surprising given the nature of a verb.
I can think up a few artificial examples ... modify "drive" with a
synthetic adverb made from the verb "accelerate" ... "He was driving
accelerately". Yuk.
Cheers,
Daniel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel James
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 5:01 pm
Post subject: Re: Is "predominately" a word? |
|
|
In article news:<R86dnViIhpiFGcLcRVn-qQ@gbronline.com>, Raymond S. Wise
wrote:
| Quote: | But the adjective "predominate" does not come from the verb "predominate"
but from the Middle Latin "prędominatus," past participle of "prędominare."
(Source: *The Century Dictionary,* www.century-dictionary.com ). Thus when
"predominately" was coined, it was an adverb fashioned from an English
adjective.
|
I'd be very careful reading too much into that. There are multiple parallel
paths by which the word "predominate" may have come to be used as an
adjective in English, one is direct from the Latin and another is from the
similarly spelt English word which in turn comes from the same Latin root.
When two words are related in such a way Dictionaries are apt to spell out
the etymology in full in only one entry and to refer to that entry from
others.
The NSOED, by the way, gives /predominari/ (sic) as the origin of both
"predominate" (v) and "predominant" (adj), while noting that "predominate"
(adj) is (was originally, at least) error for "predominant".
According to the NSOED "predominant" (n & adj) is known in English from the
mid C6th, but predominate (v and adj, separate entries) from the late C16th.
It seems very likely that "predominate" (adj) was coined from the verb by
someone who was unaware that "predominant" was already in use with the same
meaning, or who desired to 'tidy up' the language by adopting a form more in
harmony with the newly-created verb.
... then again, the dictionary only cites the oldest use of these words
/known today/. They may all be older than is recorded, and have been coined
in a different order.
Cheers,
Daniel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in