The OED tells us that the word standee is ‘originally and chiefly U.S.’, but it seems to be the preferred word in the UK too in signs in public transport vehicles to describe passengers who are legally permitted to stand. The -ee suffix, according to the OED, has its origins in legal Anglo-French where ‘the terminations -or and -ee were freely added to English verb stems to form nouns, those in -or denoting the agent, and those in -ee the passive party, in such transactions as are the object of legislative provision’. However, ‘the derivatives in -ee, . . . denote the “indirect object” of the verbs from which they are derived’. A typical example might be vendee, the one to whom a sale is being made, the vendor being the one who is selling. Standee made its first appearance, in a nautical context, in 1831. In 1849 it was used to describe those obliged to stand in a theatre (a sense in which P G Wodehouse later used it). The first use in a vehicular context was in 1856.
My question, is why, given the etymological background, is it standee and not stander? Stander was in the language long before standee and remains current in stander-by.
One of the many dictionary definitions of the word “trustee” is the following: “one, such as bank, that holds legal title to property in order to administer it for a beneficiary”. Along the same lines, here is another definition: “A member of a board elected or appointed to direct the funds and policy of an institution”.
Wouldn’t “beneficiary” and “institution” represent the object of the action performed by, respectively, the “bank” and the “member of the board”?
And isn’t an “absentee” someone who actually performs the action of not being present at an event or place?
By: Cristian on 25/06/2010
at 8:23 am
Bystandee would sound very strange, would it not?
By: diana on 25/06/2010
at 8:32 am
Interesting musing for us to ponder….*taps brow and thinks hard*
By: Heather Niewadomski on 25/06/2010
at 12:56 pm
A ‘trustee’ is one in whom trust is placed, in other words, the recipient of trust. ‘Absentee’ has its origins in the past participle, ‘abscenté’, of the Anglo-French ‘abscenter’. If we look for consistency in the use of the ‘-ee’ suffix, I think we look in vain.
By: Barrie on 26/06/2010
at 8:55 am
Escapee and attendee are both active.
By: Peter Harvey on 27/06/2010
at 3:27 pm
The one I really dislike, which is ubiquitous in the US, is “attendee”, as in “parking for church attendees only.” Surely, based on etymology, the church would be the attendee (though it sounds silly), and the people are attenders. I don’t know how this usage ever became popular.
By: Sally Cassil on 13/07/2010
at 6:42 pm
The OED records ‘attendee’ as being principally a US word and dates its first appearance, in the sense of one who attends a meeting, to 1961. ‘Attender’, although much older, doesn’t have the same meaning. To base the current meaning of a word on its etymology is to fall prey to the etymological fallacy. ‘Silly’ once meant ‘deserving of pity, compassion, or sympathy’, but no-one would argue for using it that way now. ‘Attendee’, regardless of its origin, fills a gap in our vocabulary which no other single word quite meets.
By: Barrie on 13/07/2010
at 7:09 pm
Just as a point of information, ‘attenders’ is what Quakers call those who attend meetings for worship without being full members of the Meeting.
By: Philip Bowler on 24/07/2010
at 7:08 am
Thank you. The OED isn’t quite that specific, but does record ‘attender’ as ‘one who gives heed or attention; an observer’.
By: Barrie on 24/07/2010
at 7:31 am
It could be argued that a standee is someone who receives the action of standing – that is, someone upon whom a person stands or perhaps leans! In the context of public transport vehicles, I note that the operators usually refer to sitting passengers as seated or sitting (not settees)! So why don’t they use “standing” instead of “standees” that, despite its maturity, is an irregular construction and better avoided?
By: Frank Thynne on 06/09/2010
at 4:47 pm
Language moves in mysterious ways, its wonders to perform. If irregular constructions are better avoided, why doesn’t Standard English allow ‘be’ in all persons and numbers of the present tense in the way that West Country dialects do?
By: Barrie on 06/09/2010
at 5:54 pm
A good point! Using “be” is more rational but is presumably not admitted to Standard English because the usage has become confined to minority dialects. I see no rationale for conjugated verb forms in English when we include subject pronouns, but they have by far the widest usage and are therefore the de facto standard.
My quibble is with the introduction of irregular forms when conventional forms are adequate. The irregular forms just dilute the language by creating unnecessary synonyms.
By: Frank Thynne on 06/09/2010
at 11:00 pm
I wonder if any synonyms are unnecessary. In fact, I wonder if there are such things as synonyms at all. Some of the richness of the language comes from its ability to express shades of meaning through words that might seem at first to mean the same thing. Even if you don’t accept that, apparent synonyms collocate differently. We speak of ‘damp grass’ and ‘moist skin’ and not, ‘moist grass’ and ‘damp skin’. You could, I suppose, argue that we don’t need both words, but which one would you eliminate, and on what grounds?
By: Barrie on 07/09/2010
at 5:22 am
As well as the collocations that you mention there are differences in register. ‘Seldom’ and ‘infrequently’ are synonyms but are unlikely to be interchangeable.
Perhaps the only truly interchangeable words in English are the ‘somebody/someone’ etc. series.
By: Peter Harvey on 07/09/2010
at 11:24 am
The difference between ‘seldom’ and ‘infrequently’ seems to me one of emphasis. In the sentence ‘I go there infrequently’, ‘infrequently’ foregrounds the going, whereas in the sentence ‘I seldom go there’, ‘seldom’ foregrounds the not going.
By: Barrie on 07/09/2010
at 2:14 pm
Perhaps I should yield gracefully here, and admit to an attempt to rationlise my distaste at seeing signs on buses saying “Seat xx with yy standees”. My reaction to the clumsy grammar of the notice was exacerbated by what I believed to be a new coinage, but I accept that “standee” has a longer history of use than I at first thought.
And, yes, I was cavalier in my dismissive opinion of synonyms. Usage, if no other influence, will often have coloured their meanings. And, of course, some of them stem respectably from the many roots of modern English.
By: Frank Thynne on 07/09/2010
at 10:21 am
Grammar may be unyielding, but we are all entitled to dislike one or another particular usage.
By: Barrie on 07/09/2010
at 11:12 am