This comment on the recent thread on misspelled phrases reminds me of one of my pet peeves:
I find "mentee" so offensive that I disparage its usage at every opportunity. While I will reluctantly overlook the use of "Mentor" as a verb (that battle is lost), I refuse to acknowledge the existence of the verb "to ment" that "mentee" necessarily implies. Resumes containing this word require no further review. I recently returned a fundraising letter in its business reply envelope with the word circled and the written comment, "This is not a word." I reserve such vitriol and summary dismissal for this error alone. This is because it is what might be called a Homeric error. And I don't mean Homer Simpson. Please warn your students against this fatally discrediting usage.
Here's one thing I find so offensive that I disparage its usage at every opportunity: The use of a phrase "is not a word" -- which you'd think would have the standard meaning of, well, "is not a word" -- to mean "should not be a word" or "is a word that annoys me." English speakers use "mentee," and use it often enough that it's gotten into the OED (attested for over 40 years), as well as the Random House Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary. It is, which is to say "is," a word, which is to say "a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning" -- with the function and the meaning attested by the authorities in the field (dictionaries).
I have nothing against complaints that some word or phrase is inelegant or confusing, or admonitions to students that using some word or phrase will lead some readers to think the less of them. The earlier thread was all about collecting data for such admonitions.
But those complaints should, I think, be put that way. They should not be made by claiming that something is not a word when it is a word under any sensible and common definition of the term "word."
(Note that there may be an exception when the claim is clearly hyperbole, but here this exception doesn't apply: A reader may well assume that "mentee" is actually an uncommon error, rather than a usage that is common enough that it has been recognized by lexicographers as a normal part of the English language.)
Related Posts (on one page):
Protege?
Acolyte?
I, too, am sick of the "that is not a word" argument. Even if something doesn't show up in a dictionary, if somebody uses it, and the person that hears it understands what was meant by it, it's a word.
Absofreakinglutely is too a word!
On a more serious note, while I generally agree with the main point, what about spelling rules? If I see a word and recognize what the author is trying to say, why do the spelling rules then matter? If someone wrote "I don't no what happened" is that person merely creating a new definition for an existing word and not misspelling at all?
That's why "mentee" is generally defined as referring to being guided or tutored, and not necessarily as following or being directly promoted or supported.
Telemachus?
It seems false that it is sufficient for x to be a word that A makes a sound of type x intending to mean y and B takes that sound to be A's attempt to say something that means y. At the very least, there would have to be some acceptance of a rule, at least between A and B, about when uses of that sound are appropriate and when not.
One who denies that 'mentee' is a word may just be denying that within a certain community that he or she takes to be privileged (all ordinary American English speakers?) there is sufficient acceptance of that expression to qualify as a word.
I still vote for protege.
Mentee sounds too much like the endangered sea cows that inhabit Florida's coastal waters.
Was that your mentee I saw you with at lunch?
No, that's not the person I ment.
Uggh. Mentee may be a word, but so is puke.
Gravaman is a misspelling of the word "gravamen." It is still considered a misspelling because it isn't common enough.
Donut is a word that means the same thing as "doughnut." The spelling "donut" is newer than "doughnut," but it has been common enough that it is broadly considered acceptable. Dictionaries offer evidence of that.
Irregardless is a word, but one that a lot of people view as evidence of lack of education, to the point that lexicographers mark it as dangerous to use.
Mentee is a word, which at least one person -- and perhaps some others -- dislike, but which lexicographers treat as a perfectly standard though new word. This decision by lexicographers suggests that it's not particularly dangerous to use, though it may annoy some people.
I don't much care whether people say that "gravaman" is not a word, or is a word but one that would generally be seen as a misspelling. But once a particular term becomes common enough -- and dictionaries are good at providing evidence of that -- then it's hard for me to see a sensible definition of "word" under which that term "is not a word."
How about "lickspittle," a great old word which has fallen into unwarrented desuetude?
Just kidding, obviously, although it accurately describes the role I was expected to fulfill the one time I was officially assigned a mentor.
Tutoree -- much more euphonic, with a faint scent of French which gives it an air of respectability. Or you could just say student.
If we are going to get rid of words people have coined, pretty soon we'll be back to caveman grunts; at least, in my flagestimable opinion.
As to "student," doesn't that have a strong connotation of a formal classroom teaching relationship (or at least the student's being enrolled in some formal educational institution), as opposed to just an informal guidance-giving relationship?
The same source defines "mentor" as 1. "a wise and trusted counselor or teacher" or 2. an "influential senior sponsor or supporter."
So while "protégé" is close, it isn't quite there.
It means, "To guess how patriotic someone is by the size or number of the symbols of their nation appearing in the visible portion of their property."
Example: "Sure, Joe's got a taller flagpole, but with all of Mike's bunting, I'd flagestimate he loves his country more."
By the way, irregardless is only considered to be a word because so many people use it that it was eventually adopted into dictionaries. Webster's thinks it is a combination of regardless and irrespective and recommends simply using regardless. Why add the "ir" prefix? It doesn't add anything to the word, and in fact, detracts. "Ir" means either "not," or "before" and when applied to regardless becomes "not regardless" or "before regardless." Anyone can see these make no sense.
"Tutee" gets over 10,000 hits and at least one on-line dictionary entry.
Well of course. How else would any new coinage become an accepted word? This encapsulates the descriptivist/prescriptivist battle that rages all around us: Is the function of a dictionary to describe the words that people DO use, or to prescribe the words that people SHOULD use? Seems to me that even the briefest consideration must lead to the former, because (1) what gives dictionary-makers the power to tell people what words they should use, and (2) if the latter were the case, how could languages evolve?
And as to your discussion of "irregardless" ("Why add the 'ir' prefix [to 'regardless']? It doesn't add anything to the word, and in fact, detracts"): please now discuss "inflammable."
As soon as a word means whatever we damn well wish it to mean, we can move right on down the pike to
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe
It's great poetry, but I'd be reluctant to put that language into a brief.
My understanding of "flagestimate" is an approximation of how much whipping is necessary to accomplish a given task. E.g.:
"What's your best flagestimate of the time it takes to make a meringue from raw eggs?"
"I'd flagestimate about 30 lashes before this Guantanimo prisoner decides to confess."
"Experts flagestimate that a cat-o-nine-tails is far too advanced for beginners S&M roleplaying."
1. "Brillig" = Four o'clock in the afternoon: the time when you begin broiling things for dinner.
2. "Slithy" is what Carrol called a "portmanteau" word, derived from combining "slimy" and "lithe."
3. "Tove" = a curious-looking creature that is a combination of a badger, a lizard, and a corkscrew. Toves make their nests under sundials and live on cheese.
4. "Gyre," curiously, has two meanings: to go round and round like a gyroscope, and to scratch like a dog.
5. "Gimble" = to make holes like a gimlet.
6. "Wabe" = the grass plot around a sundial. It is called a "wabe" because it goes a long way before it, and a long way behind it, and a long way beyond it on each side.
Moreover, lawyers -- and, more to the point, judges -- often use words that mean whatever they damn well wish them to mean. Case in point: "reasonable."
I also recall seeing a memo from then-Solicitor General Charles Fried prohibiting the use of "caselaw." He didn't said it's not a word, but he did denounce it as an "abomination." I guess he really likes to see the space between the word "case" and "Law."
By the way, mentoring has it's own month, January. IT'S THE LAW. Go forth and ment.
"wawa"
"pasghetti"
"owie"
"mm-hmm"
Yes, because no one would understand what you mean. If through common usage those words came to be widely understood, you would not be reluctant to do so. This change would come about solely through common usage, not by the pronouncement of some authority figure.
Flagestimate (fla-jest-i-mate): To ingest the flatulence produced by one's spouse.
Example: Sam refused to pull the car to the side of the road, so poor Sally flagestimated for five miles, at which point she shot him.
I know my English teacher thoroughly immersed me in the "is not a word", don't split infinitives, and other such. He was an excellent teacher though.
I really enjoy reading these English language posts. I have been converted! Although I still forbid my son to use me as the subject of a sentence.
If you know some Greek and some Latin, you too can coin words and there's a good chance people will understand you.
Interestingly, the Germans don't seem to do this. For example, the English word "television" is derived from a combination of two Latin roots, "tele" (far) and "vision" (see). The German word for that thing with a screen is "Fernseh," which is derived from the German words "fern" (far) and "seh" (see). The English word "hippopotamus" -- "river horse" -- is derived from two Greek roots, "hippo" (horse) and "potamus" (having to do with a river). The German word for that large animal is "Flusspferd," which is derived from the German "Fluss" (river) and "Pferd" (horse).
On the other hand, the German word for "elevator" is "Fahrstuhl," which is derived from the Germkan "fahr[en]" (to drive, to travel) and "Stuhl" (chair). Oh well -- leben und leben lassen, I guess.
Lots of people think inflammable means not flammable and I wish it were the case because the same argument would then be true. The fact that I can't make the same argument only strengthens my earlier statement: "English is reported to be the hardest language to learn as it is, due to all our uses of slang and already flaccid rules." Flaccid rules being the emphasis here. (As a side comment about it though, in a forestry class I took in college, the instructor did describe inflammable to mean not flammable.)
What I want to know is how "terrific" can mean both "very bad" and also "unusually fine," two almost opposites...
The trouble is that "in-" & "im-" can have two different and nearly opposite meanings as prefixes, and there's no way to know which is meant except word-by-word.
That's going overboard. Forbid him to use you as the subject of an essay, but how bad a light could he put you in in just one sentence?
Mom is going to the store with my sister and I. This is wrong. The correct sentence would be: Mom is going to the store with my sister and me.
Clearly that person didn't want his son to use him as a subject. What I'm now more concerned about is that his son might be "using" you as an object. An object of what? Pourquoi vous-pensez-vous que vous etes all mixed up with that person's son's life? To think of little chou-chous being objectified like that is very worrisome.
Perhaps I read it the way I did because I didn't quite get why someone's son was being interjected into the mix...? Sounded more like a grammatical demand than a personal demand to me at the time.
The problem is taht bittern is terrificly funny, but you don't share his sense of humor.
Hm, this page is flagestimate's only Google hit. We should define getting on Volokh Conspiracy to be the sole grounds for "being a word." I think that could totally be practical.
As for unnecessary prefixes--it seems half of English can be instantly translated into Latin by removing the first 2 or 3 letters. I'd like to think it's a way of making Latin more secretive: "-duce"? "-ject"? "-fer"?--English-only speakers won't immediately know what you're saying.
People will disagree over whether a particular mass of wood can be called a chair while agreeing that it can be used as a chair. So too with units of sound or letters. If someone says flagestimate is not a word (a position, by the way, I hope cannot be held creditably for very much longer), they are not necessarily expressing that it shouldn't be a word; they may simply calling as they see it.
Perhaps Mr. Volokh can learn to not be offended by such expressions. Surely such a picayune matter shouldn't rank above tiresome?
Padawan?
And even in mainstream English some people use strings that I regard as non-words. My favorite example was when a candidate for school board used "orientate" and "competency" -- both non-words in my opinion -- in his ballot pamphlet statement, thus demonstrating to any educated reader that he wasn't qualified.
"Non-words"? Really? "Orientate" is the standard British English equivalent of American English's verb "orient." I haven't looked up the British word's history, but I'd guess that it started as a back-formation from "orientation" — i.e., exactly what we're now seeing in American English.
As for "competency," "competence" still out-Googles it substantially, but "competency test" out-Googles "competence test" by about 7:1. I'd say it's a standard word by now, at least in that connection.
Now, "Finnegan's Wake" with an apostrophe in it, OTOH . . . no, that's just a mistake ;-)
Language is what people use to communicate. No consensus is required, but if there's no communcation, language ain't happening. The question could be whether it's "English," and that might be subject to consensus. Us birders use "twitch" "jizz" and "pish" in a way that non-birders would have a hard time understanding right off. Techies have plenty of their own words, that I wouldn't understand. But it's still English and it's not chaos. We'd presumably agree that win-talk, pig-Latin, and sign language are outside English. Most entertaining to me is when two foreigners speak to each other in traveler English, understanding each other well enough, and I haven't got a clue. Still ain't chaos. There's natural centrifugal and centripetal forces operating. Don't worry about it.