-1

The suffices -or and -ant each identify agents. For example, inquisitor; disputant.

Question: where two agents, each with a distinct role, are in play, can or should one use both -or and -ant in the same sentence?

Example:

It has been fashionable to impute such sentiments to fanaticism. Fashion, however, is as fleeting as it is shallow; and one ought anyway to ask which is the fanatic: the imputant or the imputor?

If wrong, what alternatives?

If right, does -ant bear any connotation -or lacks?

DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS

For reference, Webster 1913 gives these:

  • -or \-or\ suff. [L. -or: cf. OF. -or, -ur, -our, F. -eur.] ... A noun suffix denoting an agent or doer; as in auditor, one who hears; donor, one who gives; obligor, elevator. It is correlative to -ee. In general -or is appended to words of Latin, and -er to those of English, origin. See {-er}.
  • -ant \-ant\ [F. -ant, fr. L. -antem or -entem, the pr. p. ending; also sometimes directly from L. -antem.] A suffix sometimes marking the agent for action; as, merchant, covenant, servant, pleasant, etc. Cf. {-ent}.
thb
  • 995
  • If I read this sentence, I would struggle to understand it, but I would guess that the imputor was the one who did the imputing, and the imputant was the one upon whom the imputing was done. A more familiar pair of prefixes for this are -er/-ee (or -or/-ee). – Mike Graham Feb 03 '20 at 17:30
  • @MikeGraham I had thought of that so I am glad that you have brought it up. Your guess is right, and maybe -ee is better, but then I was thinking: what about -or versus -ant? I did not know the answer to the last question, which is why I asked. – thb Feb 03 '20 at 17:42
  • Please give linked and attributed dictionary definitions of both words. Is there a potential conflict in meaning (both seem rare)? Does 'employers must consider risks to their employees' pose any problems? – Edwin Ashworth Feb 03 '20 at 17:42
  • @EdwinAshworth Dictionary definitions added (source is offline; cannot link). Regarding employee, I had thought that that was a person employed, whereas my imputant is not a person imputed as far as I know. – thb Feb 03 '20 at 17:55
  • Thanks, but (good though these are) I meant for 'imputant & 'imputor'. You need to give the definitions for each (and, if there are several senses, you need to point out the default sense, mentioned first in most dictionaries). – Edwin Ashworth Feb 03 '20 at 19:04
  • @EdwinAshworth The words imputant and imputor do not appear in my dictionary. They are constructs. The word imputer appears but I did not use it because the Saxon -er does not seem to harmonize with the Latinate -ant. Anyway, my question regards -or and -ant together in the same sentence, not impute, especially. The imputant was just an example. – thb Feb 03 '20 at 20:52
  • 1
    Examples need to use English, not DIY non-words. As does sensible communication in everyday English. Using contrivances makes the question nebulous, perhaps nonsensical. Certainly off-topic. With a real example, 'Employers must consider risks to their employees' shows that there is no reason at all not to use agent and 'recipient/subjected' variants of a base word in the same sentence where sensible. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 04 '20 at 14:12
  • There are many high quality, free online dictionaries you can use as references and link to. The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Wiktionary, etc. – CJ Dennis Feb 04 '20 at 22:09

1 Answers1

0

I think the question cannot be answered in general terms along the lines of "is -ant or -or right?". It depends very much on the conventionalised use of Latinates of either suffix for specific words.