commenter vs. commentator

[Judy Prince]

Got it, Amy.

And, as always, you make me laugh; this time encountering a lively pre-14th
c "peever"----lucky you!
Best,

Judy
On 22 June 2010 13:29, Amy West <medievalist at w-sts.com> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Amy West <medievalist at W-STS.COM>
> Subject:      Re: commenter vs. commentator
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On 6/22/10 12:00 AM, Automatic digest processor wrote:
> > Date:    Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:15:04 +0100
> > From:    Judy Prince<jbalizsprince at GMAIL.COM>
> > Subject: Re: commenter vs. commentator
> >
> > Hi, Amy, thank you for raising this up-to-the-second discussion.
> >
> > Help me understand your distinction between the two word uses:  " . .
> > . the author and editors probably chose to use "commenter" because of the
> > difference between posting discrete comments to a number of stories as
> > opposed to creating a unified commentary."
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Judy
>
> What I have in mind is a series of individual comments on separate news
> stories as opposed to a longer unified prose piece commenting on an
> event, policy, etc. in order to explain, interpret, etc.
>
> One of the peevers who didn't like "commentator" said it was because she
> was older than the term. Well, no, I pointed out to her: the 14th. c.
> early uses, and even the modern sense pre-dates her (she was born well
> after 1928).
>
> --
> ---Amy West
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>



--
"Ostriches can't be beheaded."

Jeff Hecker, Norfolk VA

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org