Feb 21st 2011, 15:15 by R.L.G. | NEW YORK
ERIC BAKOVIC does a nice job breaking down why some people might say prótesters and others, protésters. But he skips over an interesting little transatlantic dimension.
Some noun-verb pairs have different stress patterns: you recórd a récord, and a pérmit permíts you to do something. So it is with protest: the verb, the original word, is protést, "to object to something". The origin in the OED is given as "orig. and chiefly Scottish law", by the way, with the earliest citation in 1429. The noun, meaning "objection", appears about half a century later.
The OED gives only one stress pattern for the British pronunciation of the verb: protést. But the American pronunciations are given as protést and prótest both. I think Mr Bakovic is right that the second verb is something that you do as a group, often connected to a political grievance. "The lady doth protést too much" versus, at least in many American mouths, "Libyans are prótesting the 42-year-long rule of their dictator." The second, prótest, is probably back-formed from the noun prótest.
On to "protesters". Agentive nouns usually require just adding the -er suffix, so a blogger is someone who blogs. As for stress, it will be added to the verb (and its stress pattern): recórder, not récorder. So I suspect that this mental rule will, therefore, produce protésters for those who have only protést as a verb (and if the OED is right, this groups would be chiefly British). If you have the verb prótest in your vocabulary, meaning "to express a larger grievance, and especially a political or economic one, usually as part of a group", you'll say prótesters. But if you're in this later group, you probably keep two verbs, not one. "The lady doth protést too much" would call to mind Shakespeare. "The lady doth prótest too much" would describe an activist trying to shut down the local community college for offering insufficient vegan options in the cafeteria.
In this blog, named after the dictionary-maker Samuel Johnson, our correspondents write about the effects that the use (and sometimes abuse) of language have on politics, society and culture around the world
Advertisement
Over the past five days
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.
Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter
See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
RLG or fellow commentators...
Just while we are on (or off) this topic can you settle a wager?
Adver-tis-ment or Ad-ver-tise-ment...?
Is this a case of Anglo/American dissonance?
I would always use the former pronunciation as I was taught that in English one should always tended towards the fewest number of syllables when given a choice...?
We speakers of Southern European languages have always been told that our beautiful offspring of Latin were overcomplicated, frankly baroque, particularly when compared to English - spare, direct, to-the-point.
Now I see Anglo creations can be quite precious and nitpicking, too.
LaContra, I'm fairly sure most would agree 'AD-ver-TISE-ment is American, ad-VER-tis-ment is British. But they both have the same number of syllables (four).
RLG.
Maybe my Australian strine pushes the first two syllables together, running them together in typical lazy Australian fashion.
Thanks
:)
"...a pérmit permíts you to do something."
Except in Canada, where it's all "permíts" for nouns and verbs.
Bernardo as a Canadian I'd say that we have both uses. I apply for a building pe`rmit which permi`ts me to add onto my house.
An E-co'-no-mist studies e-co-no'-mics as well.
I am in the pro'-tes-ter and pro-test' group.
Divided by a common language, for Shaw (sorry, sure).
AD-ver-TISE-ment is certainly American, in that is probably not heard anywhere else. But it is not universal among Americans by any means.