4 ms·
This is just begging the question! So "restaurateur" was first, but did "restaurant" get an "n"? Why isn't it "restaurat"? The reason is that in French (ultima
by tome 2y ago
This is just begging the question! So "restaurateur" was first, but did "restaurant" get an "n"? Why isn't it "restaurat"? The reason is that in French (ultimately from Latin) "-ateur" means "person who" and "-ant" means roughly "ing". So a "restaurater" is someone who restores and "restaurant" means "restoring" (i.e. a restoring soup, subsequently place).
- banannaise 2y agoYou consult a restorator, who gives you a restorant!
- thaumasiotes 2y agoHuh, the article immediately suggests a related question to me: > BTW, the feminine version of a restaurateur was “restauratrice.” That makes perfect sense, since the feminine agentive suffix in Latin is -rix. But I thought the feminine agentive ending in French was -euse! Where did we get "masseuse"? Wiktionary suggests that -euse is an alternate equivalent of -rice, derived from Latin -osus (which has no agentive meaning at all; it means "full of [whatever]", and transformed into a French agentive suffix by people who felt that -eur and -euse must be related because they sound so similar.
- forty 2y agoI cannot really come up with a good rule, but I notice that words in -teur seem to have a féminin in -trice (restaura-teur/-trice, ama-teur/-trice, institu-teur/-trice, anima-teur/-trice) while other -eur words seem to prefer -euse (mass-eur/-euse, football-eur/-euse, arnaqu-eur/-euse).
- thaumasiotes 2y agoI should note that in Latin the masculine agentive suffix is definitely -or. It may look like -tor, but that -t- is actually a separate element marking the perfect passive participle form. (From which agent nouns are derived.) Most verbs have a passive participial form that includes the -t-, but in some it's been swallowed by an S. The only example that comes to mind is missus [sent], the passive participle of mittere [send]. The modern French verb is apparently mettre. I guess if the agent nouns are formed from that root, they should be metteur and mettrice? But if they descend from Latin, the masculine form might not use -tt-. I feel pretty safe in saying that "sender" would be missor in Latin - it's an attested (though "very rare") word - but I have no instinct for what the feminine form would be. Missrix just doesn't feel right.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- CRConrad 2y ago> is missus [sent] You wish. I sure couldn't send my missus away at the drop of a hat. ___ ETA: > Missrix just doesn't feel right. I'm guessing they'd just (re?)insert the 't': "Misstrix" feels quite pronouncable.
- thaumasiotes 2y agoI don't think -sst- is a possible sequence in Latin. (Neither is -ssr-, but that one suffers from the bigger problem that -sr- probably won't work either.) Mistrix is certainly a word that could exist, but I have no knowledge of whether it would be a correct form for a female sender.
- capitainenemo 2y agoYeah, I don't feel like there's any strong rule on these things apart from "what sounds good" unless the male ending exists like -ien I've heard at various times in my life the various feminine endings applied to same profession - people playing around with what sounds good or a generational thing. -esse -ice -enne -euse There's also the debate in gendered languages over whether one should never use feminine endings on professions, and keep them generic, or always use them for all professions for consistency, avoiding suggesting certain professions are male vs female, while ensuring women are visible in professions where they used to be rarer.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago> There's also the debate in gendered languages over whether one should never use feminine endings on professions, and keep them generic, or always use them for all professions for consistency [...] This is a somewhat different kind of thing. In English, there are plenty of professions with a gendered suffix rather like this. Waiter / waitress; actor / actress; steward / stewardess. In general, the -ess cannot be used for a word that doesn't already exist; the feminist prescription for a female doctor is "lady doctor", not "doctress". You might also note that the masculine versions of those three examples have three different "suffixes". But the agentive suffix is always -er, whether the agent is male or female. Professions are conceptually different, and better modeled as opaque words than as stem+suffix combinations.
- implements 2y ago> the feminist prescription for a female doctor is "lady doctor", not "doctress" Being male I hesitate to speak for feminists, but I’m fairly sure at least 2nd wave ones would prefer just “doctor” and would frown on “lady” as an unnecessary qualifier.
- cardiffspaceman 2y agoAgreeing… You can hear women call themselves “actor” rather than “actress” if you deign to partake of news articles about people who act.
- CRConrad 2y ago> arnaqu-eur/-euse WTF is that? And more importantly, can I get an armagnaqueur to keep me topped up?
- msk-lywenn 2y agoThe verb is restaurer. Its gerund form is restaurant (ie. transforming a verb into a noun) Restaurateur is also a noun but its the job associated with the verb, not the verb transformed into a noun directly.
- hoseja 2y agoIt makes perfect sense? Let's be a little cheeky and invent analogues. Try for example "color". person that does coloring - colorer thing that does coloring - colorant
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- api_or_ipa 2y agoWith “adult” (meaning violate, dilute, or extramaritally fornicate) Person that does adultering: adulterer Thing that does adultering: adulterant
- CRConrad 2y agoIf you sweat you're a perspirator, not a perspirantor -- a sweater, not a sweanter -- but you still use an antiperspirant against sweating. See how "sweating" also has an 'n' in it, but "sweater" doesn't? The -ant is just the French version of -ing.