"_sum total_"

[Dan Goncharoff]

Decalquemania?

Isn't that a desire to get the bathroom clean in a location with hard water?

DanG

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:26 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_"
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yes, this seems to be exactly the same phenomenon. (The only
> difference I can see is that 'trésor trové' hasn't had a marginal life
> in English the way 'summa totalis' has, so substitution wouldn't be
> even a theoretical possibility.) Just one more example and it will be
> a nameworthy phenomenon. Decalquemania?
>
> Geoff
>
> > From: Neal Whitman <nwhitman at AMERITECH.NET>
> > Date: February 16, 2011 4:14:02 AM PST
> > Subject: Re: "_sum total_"
> >
> >
> > 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
>

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