Conference thebay::joyoflex

    One of the marvelous things about the English language is that there
    are no hard and fast rules. One cannot conclude that because a word in
    English apparantly ends with a suffix, that it in fact does. Nor can
    one assume that that suffix is being used in a standard fashion. 
    
    According to my dictionary, a standee is someone who occupies standing
    room. Examples given were: a standee at a play, on a bus, or in a
    ticket queue [sic]. I use "sic" because the use of the word "queue"
    (instead of "line") implies to me that it's valid in Britian as well as
    in the States. Similarly, there is the word "attendee" meaning a person
    who attended some function. So far as I can tell, both words are
    standard English. 
    
    	Jon

>       I have visions of a row of three schoolkids sitting on
>    a seat with the body of "standee" crushed beneath their feet...
    

If it was a typical school bus, your vision is probably accurate. ;^) 

Clay

    MLNOIS::HARBIG
                   45 seated, 15 standees....
    
                   For consistency they could use 45 seated, 15 standing
                                     or
                   45 seatees, 15 standees :-)
    
                   Standees may not be wrong but it's ugly.
                                                           Max

    Standees is wrong, Wrong, WRONG!
    
    Re: .1
    What dictionary have you got? Are you sure it's an English Language
    one? Chambers, Collins and the Shorter OED don't list "standee".
    The "-ee" suffix creates a noun that is the *object* of the verb.
    It pobably comes from the french e-acute ending. Someone who stands
    might just be a "stander" or even "standor", though these are not
    pleasant words.
    
    Andy
    
    PS Is a Grandee one who has been granded?...

    re .4
    
    I agree, which I suppose means I have an agreement forced on me,
    but then when considering Eric's (was it?) reply about attendee,
    then I reckon that it's got to be an acceptable innovative use.
    
    however, in the context of London Underground, standee is definitely
    wrong. Squashee would be nearer the truth.
    
    Phillip

    .4 (e-acute) is right; but some French verbs are intransitive. 
    So an "escapee" is someone who "s'est echapp�[e]" and a "refugee"
    is someone who "s'est refugi�[e]" (are these spellings right, Roger?). 
    These words are a sort of precedent for the -ee suffix as active. 

    Note that I said 'sort of precedent'.  It's not a precedent that
    I follow, or encourage others to follow.
    
    b

    OK, so maybe standee does exist in the American language.  I'm sorry,
    but it's going to be one of those words that I will cringe at if
    I ever come across it again...
         
    A "seatee" (probably "seatie"), by the way, was what we called giving a
    lift to someone on a bicycle (i.e., you're pedalling away, precariously
    balanced somewhere over the crossbar, while the person getting the
    lift gets the seat, but no pedals)...
    
    John.

    To me, I usually associate the '-ee' suffix with an '-or' (or '-er')
    suffix.  The '-or' does something, and the '-ee' is the recipient. 
    
    grantor --> grantee
    donor   --> donee
    interviewer --> interviewee
    etc.
    
    However, in some situations either one or the other of such a
    relationship may be nebulous, such as when the transaction takes
    place through some agent.  Frequently a _donor_ has no knowledge
    of the eventual recipient, and vice versa.
    
    A _standee_ therefore is someone who is the recipient of a "non-seat".
    It isn't usually something he intended to do, but rather something
    that was forced upon him as a viable alternative to not riding at
    all!
    
    With that same logic, _attendee_ presents another problem unless
    it derived from the situation where someone was requested or coerced
    into attendence at a function to which he would have preferred not
    to go.
    
    Rebuttals, anyone?   

    Re .4:
    
    >PS Is a Grandee one who has been granded?...
    
    Possibly, if the one involved is a cat in a cat show.  "To grand,"
    in cat-show parlance, is to bestow on a cat the title of Grand
    Champion.
    
    Sorry, I don't make 'em up; I just report 'em....

    re .4 and .-1    Then there's the Grand Coulee.

    re .4:

    Standee is right, Right, RIGHT!

    (Unless, of course, you're the person who decides English grammar, in
    which case, please accept my humble apologies for being so
    presumptuous.) 

    Apart from it not being in your vocabulary, what's wrong with it? There
    are other perfectly good -ee words like this, as has been mentioned.

    The dictionary I have is the Merriam-Webster Third New International,
    unabridged, 1986 edition. It does not list it as slang, colloquial, or
    anything else. Simply a word. It doesn't give an etymology, either, but
    them's the breaks.

    	Jon

    Here's Fowler on -ee:
    
    Apart from its rare use as a diminutive (coatee, bootee) and its
    seemingly arbitrary appearance in some words (bargee, grandee, goatee,
    settee), this suffix is most commonly used for the indirect object
    of a verb, especially in legal terms: _lessee, vendee, trustee,
    referee_ are persons to whom something is let, sold, entrusted,
    or referred.  Being originally an adaptation of the French p.p.
    _e'_, it also serves in some words for the direct object (employee,
    trainee, examinee).  Such words as _refugee, debauchee, absentee_,
    being derived in this way from French reflexive verbs, where subject
    and object are the same, have the appearance of agent-nouns; and
    this no doubt accounts for a modern tendency to make new agent-nouns
    by using the suffix -ee.  But we already have at least three suffixes
    for that purpose (-er, -or, and -ist) and to use one whose natural
    meaning is the opposite is gratuitously confusing.  The unskilled
    workers used to 'dilute' skilled workers in time of war should have
    been called _diluters_ instead of _dilutees_; the skilled were the
    dilutees.
    
    And for _escapee, escapism, & escapist_ he writes:
    
    _Escapism_ and _escapist_, for those who would escape from reality
    into fantasy, are words too recent to be in the OED Supp.; they
    are no doubt a natural product of the atomic age.  Cf. _wishful_
    thinking.  _Escapee_, whose French form is said to be due to it
    having originally applied to French convicts from New Caledonia
    escaping to Australia, is a SUPERFLUOUS WORD that should not be
    allowed to usurp the place of _escaper_.  One might as well call
    deserters _desertees_.
    
    Bernie 
          

    I'm afraid I have to disagree with Mr Fowler on this; if superfluity
    were sufficient for banishing a word from English, then English would
    have a small vocabulary, indeed. 
    
    I did some more checking on "standee:" A Random House Collegiate
    labeled it "informal." 
    
    An American Heritage Collegiate referred me to their entry on "-ee,"
    where I was told that it was blessed by their Usage Panel for spoken
    use, but that they were divided for its suitability for written use. 
    
    The OED lists it (contrary to previous reports) and labels it an
    American Usage dating from 1856. The definition we're discussing here
    is given as, "One who is compelled to stand" and Webster is quoted from
    1880. The definition Webster gives via the OED is "one who is obliged
    to stand at a place of public amusement." (FYI, the other definition
    is "a standing bed place in a steamer.") 
    
    Okay, folks, what's wrong with it? Apart from being labeled as
    informal, a U.S. usage, and apparently a word you have never heard
    before? Personally, I consider the ambivalence of the AH Usage panel to
    be in its favor -- they're often making themselves into pointy-heads,
    and besides, I object to any group trying to make itself into the
    American Academy of Language. Merriam Webster, arguably the American
    equivalent of the OED, uses no perjoratives, nor does the OED. In my
    straw poll, only Random House and AH denigrate it. 
    
    	Jon

    I don't see how the language benefits by having several ways of
    saying the same thing.  In fact, I think more often than not it
    suffers for that.  It makes communication less certain, more difficult.
    If all superfluous words (or meanings) were banished from English,
    the language would not suffer.  The vocabulary would still be vast
    and we would be capable of using it to express precisely our thoughts
    and ideas.
    
    Bernie

    Languages benefit, or perhaps the speakers of them benefit, because
    we are able to express things in ways which reflect our own background
     - regionalisms lend a sense of belonging to a specific geographically
    defined group, jargon allows us to say we belong to a socially defined
    group, old fashioned/poetic/unusual usages let us say about ourselves
    that we have certain aesthetic/moral/intellectual aspects to us
    (though the orders of those two groups is all wrong ) which others
    may or may not have, and which we might want to express.
    
    To banish superfluity (which we would all recognise as an impossibility
    any way, for how can language be legislated against?) is akin to
    banishing accents. I think.
    
    Phillip

    And if such a ridiculous attempt were made to eliminate superflous
    elements from the language, to whom would such an awesome task be
    assigned?  Under what quidelines?  What would be the process for
    review and concensus?  And, besides, who would consent to abide
    by the new rules???  Language censoring???   IN THIS COUNTRY???

    On the other hand, if we get rid of superfluous words, we would need
    thesauruses (thesaures?). We wouldn't have to agonize over picking the
    right word -- there'd be only one. The Academy of Language would decide
    once and for all which of "big," "large," "huge," etc. would be the
    Correct Word, and we'd all use it. Also, those of us who like
    tongue-clucking would have another reason to do so. 
    
    I'll bet we could even be like the French and fine people. Improper Use
    of the Language might carry a $50 fine; Abuse of the Language might
    be six months in prison or $5000; Murdering the Language would no
    doubt carry the death penalty!
    
    Oooh, this could be fun!
    
    	Jon

    A thesaurus would remain as useful as it is today.  The language
    would still have synonyms; it would not have exact synonyms.  A
    thesaurus is useful on those occasions when you don't know quite
    the right word.  If you have _the_ right word, you have little need
    for a thesaurus to help you find another word equally right.  No need
    for monetary fines; failure to communicate is penalty enough.
    
    You are all correct of course in your assessment of the _practicality_
    of eliminating the truly superfluous.
    
    Bernie  

    Re: last few replies:
    
    Is it 1984 already?
    
    There are no _truly_ superfluous words in the English Language.
    Every one, by its sound or origin, can convey a slightly different
    meaning. Without apparent superfluity, English literature would
    be boring stuff indeed. Have you ever tried learning a little
    Esperanto? It's almost totally predictable, and very dull. Personally
    I suspect this is one of the reasons it never quite caught on.
    
    It's tempting to wish for an quivalent of the Academie Francaise,
    a final authority on the state of the language; but don't forget
    that by limiting the language you can limit thought. Double-plus
    bad.
    
    Oh, and I still think "standees" should merit a hefty fine for minor
    assault on the English language.
    
    Andy
    
    

    Re: .19
    
    'Standee' and 'stander' are truly superfluous, as are 'iterate'
    and 'reiterate;' the latter were the subject of a previous note.
    Eliminating one of each pair enhances communication and does nothing
    to limit thought.  Indeed, the avoidance of confusion does a great deal
    to enhance thought.  Understand that when people speak of "eliminating"
    words, they are not talking about passing laws and assessing punishments;
    but are only offering advice to literate people.
    
    Bernie

>    < Note 405.21 by CLARID::BELL "David Bell Service Technology @VBO" >
>                    -< But I don't want to be literated ! >-

    You could change your name to Bobby B. Bell. Then you'd be alliterated.
    
    ACK :-)

    Re: .21
    
        
    >                 -< But I don't want to be literated ! >-


    Why not?  That would make you a literatee!
    

    re .20:
    
    What if the literate people disagree with you? Does that make them not
    literate? 
    
    	Jon

    Re: .23
>   Re: .21
>   >                 -< But I don't want to be literated ! >-
>   Why not?  That would make you a literatee!

    If I were to literate myself, would that make me a literati?

>    What if the literate people disagree with you? Does that make them not
>    literate? 
    
    And it makes you il.
    
    John

    Re: .24
    
    >What if the literate people disagree with you? Does that make them
    >not literate?
    
    Of course not; one is always free to reject advice.  What a strange
    question.
    
    Bernie

When I first read "seatees" in this discussion, I tee-heed out loud in my
cube.

Only now, days later, do I fully realize why.  It's because of an old
ditty I recall seeing in a toilet room:

	If you sprinkle when you tinkle
	Be a sweetie and wipe the seatie !


Isn't that darling ?

/Eric

    A recent entry in the Word Association Football note was "looker".
    Now there's a contranymic one.  "Looker" by one definition is "one
    who looks". By another slangy definition, it's "one who is worth
    looking at" (at whom?).  Shouldn't the latter be "lookee"?

    From the Wall Street Journal, Monday September 11th 1987, in an
    article about junk bonds and Latin American debt (i.e., a serious
    article):
    
    	Richard L. Huber, a senior Citicorp executive, recently
    	paid a call on the Drexel financier, noting that while
    	Citicorp is loaded down with foreign debt, Mr. Milken is
	loaded with wealthy investors.  "We've got the stuff
    	and (Mr Milken's team has) got the stuffees," he jokes.
    
    So there you are: people who get paid large amounts of money are
    using "stuffee", in a way that means a "stuffee" is the person
    who gives up money, not the person who gets it.   Just another
    datum.
    
    				-John Bishop
    

    Re: -.1
    
    All us readees got your message. (Or are we hearees?)

                                      
    -bs

    
    A "standee" is one who is made to stand. 
    A "stander" is one who chose to stand. 
    They are only the same if there is standing room only.
    
    rmm
    

    re. 31
    
    We could be notees - unless we're actually contributing notes, which
    makes us noters, of course.
    
    John

    re .33
    
    >                            -< Notees read Notes? >-

    No, no, no:
    
                                 -<Notee readee Notes? >-
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

      When I was in the US Army, we referred to people (especially
      in written orders) as 
      
         enlistees      Those who enlisted, or were about to do so
         reenlistees    Those who reenlisted, or were about to do so
                         (In official typeset material the word had
                         a diaeresis on the second 'e' and was written
                         as shown here (no hyphen) in typewritten
                         text.)
         draftees       Those who had been drafted
         receptees      Those who were just received (as in at a
                        Reception Center)
         trainees       Those being trained
         detainees      Those being detained
         separatees     Those being separated from the service
         transferees    Those being transferred
         returnees      Those who have returned, or are about to
                        return
      
      But,
         prisoners   not prisonees
         graduates   not graduatees
         patients    not hospitalees
         officers    not commissionees

      Dave C.