0

...and do they have a suffix of their own?

Cambridge says "-er" is "added to [...] verbs to form nouns that refer to people or things that [do/are performing] that particular activity". Okay, that's clear.

But then, in contrast: "-ee" is "added to a verb to form a noun that refers to the person to whom the action of the verb is being done".

So in this example, presupposing the listener of said rant is not the subject of same, are they the rantee (since the ranting is directed towards them)? Or is it the person the rant is about (since the dialog is about them)?

And what's the third leg of the triad called? Do they get a suffix?

Reflecting on it, were I the debater, and my opponent the debatee, the topic being debated would be the "debated", right? The "ranted" doesn't sound right, either.

(I'm aware the -ee/-er is more a convention than a firm grammatical rule, like double-plurals ("fishes of the sea") or the faux-Latinization of words ending in "us" ("styli"/"stylus", "cacti"/"cactus", "panini"/"paninus"), but I'm hoping to better understand the implicit rules surrounding the convention).

Greybeard
  • 41,737
NerdyDeeds
  • 143
  • 6
  • This is partly a duplicate of this. See also https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/er-ee – Stuart F May 11 '22 at 22:56
  • 1
    We generally say someone rants about something but not to someone. And if they do, we just say: He was ranting about x to me. – Lambie May 11 '22 at 22:59
  • Does this answer the question? https://english.stackexchange.com/a/88317/15299 – John Lawler May 11 '22 at 23:02
  • 2
    You can't refer to a person as the "ranted" because "rant" is not a transitive verb. This is allowed for some intransitive verbs (e.g., "the dearly departed") but not in general. (And nominalizing a past participle isn't that common even for transitive verbs.) – MarcInManhattan May 11 '22 at 23:18
  • "Cambridge says "-er" is "added to [...] verbs to form nouns that refer to people or things that [do/are performing] that particular activity". Okay, that's clear." -- I don't think it is. Cambridge is giving general guidance, not an infallible, universal rule. – Greybeard May 11 '22 at 23:33
  • Rants can be about anything, so the subject matter does not get a tag. And while rants are often not directed at a set rantee, that label is understandable. Like the label mentee - dumb but clear enough. – Yosef Baskin May 11 '22 at 23:50
  • According to AHD, rant has a transitive sense too, and its object is what is said while ranting, in the form of a clause - (AHD) ranted that he was mentally unfit to be president – Jack O'Flaherty May 12 '22 at 03:21
  • English springs in part from its Franco-Norman ancestry as well as from Anglo-saxon. From a verb like 'voler'(to steal) your can derive the noun 'voleur' = one who steals. As it happens, we call that a thief rather than a stealer, but in general the '-er' ending often is used to change from the verb of 'doing' to the noun for the 'doer', a word you will find in Merriam Webster's or any other good dictionary. Similarly, we can often turn a verb like 'pay' to a noun for the person that gets paid 'the payee'. This relates to the fact that French expresses the 'doee' by the ending '-é'. – Tuffy May 12 '22 at 08:09
  • @StuartF I read that one prior to posting, actually, and while it touches the same subject matter, it lacks the problematic aspect of this: namely, does the usage/definition of the suffix shift when the LISTENER does (like a pronoun) or does it remain static, (like a proper noun)? My query here is since the er/ee scenario referenced here is that of a third party - that is, someone not present to hear the aforementioned rant - does the LISTENER become the rantee? Or do they remain simply the person listening to me rant about the rantee? – NerdyDeeds May 20 '22 at 19:18
  • I think the distinction comes from the passive nature of the person being ranted about. If I'm engaged in debate, I, the debater, have been engaged by my opponent, the debatee, giving them an active role in the interaction. Even telling you about the debate, the debatee remains clear: the one with whom I'd been debating. In the case of the rantee, they may well have no idea I'm ranting AT ALL – NerdyDeeds May 20 '22 at 19:23

0 Answers0