"_sum total_"

[Neal Whitman]

The "not redundant until reanalysis" situation is like Ben's history of "treasure trove": 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/magazine/09FOB-onlanguage-t.html

Neal Whitman

On Feb 16, 2011, at 1:51 AM, geoffrey nunberg <nunberg at ISCHOOL.BERKELEY.EDU> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       geoffrey nunberg <nunberg at ISCHOOL.BERKELEY.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: "_sum total_"
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Well, in this particular case, it might difficult to make the case persuasively. The prescriptivist would have to allow that (a) the individual elements of "sum total" correspond etymologically and formally to the elements of "summa totalis" and (b) the two expressions have identical phrasal meanings (i.e., there actually is a one-to-one semantic mapping between the contemp. Eng. and 15th c. Latin phrases), and (c) "summa totalis" isn't redundant in Latin. But even so, the prescriptive argument would go, in the case of English, "total" shifted its meaning well after the calque was first introduced so as force a reanalysis of the syntax of the phrase and make it redundant now. So the rule would be, you should avoid English "sum total" on grounds of redundancy, but if you want to replace it with the synonymous phrase "summa totalis," knock yourself out.
> 
> As I said, I think this is the correct analysis, but I have a hard time imagining that anybody would find it satsifying-- I mean, even assuming that it was still okay to substitute a Latin phrase for the corresponding English one in formal prose. In point of fact, of course, nobody ever has to, since "summa totalis" never enters the discussion. But I wonder if there are any other examples of this type.
> 
> Geoff

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