Language desk
< November 2	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 3

Motion that each arm swings

From Arm swing in human locomotion (mentioned by Medeis on RD talk): Arm swing [...] is a natural motion that each arm swings with the motion of the opposing leg. To this L2 speaker, using that here does not sound grammatical, so I'd like to check out my hunch. If I'm right – which grammatical constraint has been violated here? Perusing wikt:that#Pronoun, I guess it was used as a relative pronoun modifying motion, but the subordinate clause each arm swings is unrelated to it. Finally, how would you recast the sentence? To me, "where" instead of "that" would instantly make it grammatical. No such user (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close. It's not really a place, this thing. "Wherein" works better. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could be short for "so that" or "such that". I think it's a conjunction here. 80.5.88.70 (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "where" is succinct and perfectly cromulent, and does not have to mean location, but rather by/in which. "He wrote an essay where he argues..." μηδείς (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the essay is located on the paper/screen/goatskin, so it half-works (though I'd still go with "wherein"). A motion or process is from here to there, existing in no space of its own. Nowhere calls for no "where". InedibleHulk (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"When" could work in place of "that", according to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"in which" would be far better than that. Akld guy (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English -ar vs -er

Is there a specific origin of the suffix -ar for "person who does X" rather than -er?

I can only think of a few -ar (please add if you think of others).

liar
registrar
burglar

added:

scholar
bursar
vicar

vs:

waiter
swimmer
believer
... and about 10,000 more

Is it Latin -er versus Anglo-Saxon -ar (this theory doesn't seem to work for registrar)?

Any insight welcome. --Lgriot (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Registrar" is basically a shortening of "registrary" (the older form) and has a non-schwa vowel in the final syllable (which is also stressed in many pronunciations). The others are just spelling variations, as far as I can tell (though the word "burglar" doesn't etymologically have the usual "-er" suffix). Note that the modern English "-er" agent/occupational suffix is a coalescence of an Old English "-ere" suffix and a medieval French "-ier" suffix, which comes from Latin "-arius". Some have claimed that the Old English comes from a Germanic form which was a borrowing of Latin "-arius" into early Germanic (see "etymology 1" and "etymology 4" at wikt:-er )... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have it exactly backwards. -ar comes from Latin,[1], wheras -er comes from Germanic.[2], though there's likely some cross-over and respellings that confuse things. --Jayron 32 16:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The suffix -ar in your etymonline link is a different suffix than what the OP is asking about. The former is what OED calls -ar¹, meaning "of the kind of, belonging to", in words such as "muscular", "nuclear", "granular", etc. The latter is OED's -ar³, meaning "one who does X". CodeTalker (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also here for the -ary "the man engaged in" (c.f. regsitar(y)) Still Latinate through the french -aire (compare "Legionaire") rather than Germanic. --Jayron 32 16:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Registrar comes from Latin registrarius where -arius is an agentive suffix, like -er. μηδείς (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary says -ar is a "casual variant of -er, -or, suffix of agent". It says it is very common in northern (England) dialects, with such forms as syngar (singer), soutar (sutor) and hear (higher). It adds "Probably imitating the refashioned scholar, vicar, pillar for earlier scoler, viker, piler. CodeTalker (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CodeTalker -- that refers to several centuries ago... AnonMoos (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? I don't understand your point. The OP asked for the origin of these spellings, which in most cases date back several centuries. CodeTalker (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scholar [ec] is another example. Etymology Online says liar is a probably respelling based on analogy with the -arius terms. The Middle English spelling was lier. In my opinion liar avoids the chance one might interpret lier as leer. μηδείς (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)"Burglar" is from the legal Latin burglator (from the verb burgulare). Oxford English Dictionary says:

-ar, suff.², occas. repr. of L, -arius, -arium (ordinarily repr. by -ER, -ARY). Generally, a refashioning of an earlier -er from OF, -ier, after the prec., as bursar ...or after the mod. F. in -aire, as vicar, ME. ...

-ar, suff.³, casual variant of -ER, -OR, suffix of agent, and -ER suffix of comparative ... And in modern Eng. in beggar, liar, pedlar. Probably imitating the refashioned scholar, vicar ...

The -OR ending is Latin, for example "executor" and "executrix" (feminine). 80.5.88.70 (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. I had forgotten about the -or one as well! In short, it is a mess and X-ar as "the person who does X" is non-productive suffix that has a different reason to exist for nearly every word where it is found, mostly in imitation of scholar/vicar (although a scholar is not some who schols, and a vicar is not someone who vics). --Lgriot (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Scholar" doesn't seem at all like an example of that suffix; it does not mean a person who "scholes" (whatever that would mean). "Burgle" and "beg" are back-formations, and the former seems jocular to many who speak English (but I have the impression that in England it may have become so standard that even some educated people there may think that "burglar" is derived from "burgle" by putting a suffix at the end of it). There is also the word "translator" and some others like it. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The broadest meaning of -arius is "having to do with", you should read the wikt article, see etymology (1) at the link I posted above. μηδείς (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

beggar. HOTmag (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afterwards, I saw an anonymous response (80.5.88.70) who had already supplied this example. HOTmag (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]