Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What happened to the n in restaurateur?

ciachef.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 74 posts

Re: What happened to the n in restaurateur?

#61

Post by capitainenemo »

forty wrote: post #32
thaumasiotes wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, the article immediately suggests a related question to me: > BTW, the feminine version of a restaurateur was “restauratrice.” That makes perfect sense, since the feminine agentive suffix in Latin is -rix. But I thought the feminine agentive ending in French was -euse! Where did we get "masseuse"? Wiktionary suggests that -euse is an alternate equivalent of -rice, derived from Latin -osus (which has no agentive m…

I cannot really come up with a good rule, but I notice that words in -teur seem to have a féminin in -trice (restaura-teur/-trice, ama-teur/-trice, institu-teur/-trice, anima-teur/-trice) while other -eur words seem to prefer -euse (mass-eur/-euse, football-eur/-euse, arnaqu-eur/-euse).

Yeah, I don't feel like there's any strong rule on these things apart from "what sounds good" unless the male ending exists like -ien

I've heard at various times in my life the various feminine endings applied to same profession - people playing around with what sounds good or a generational thing. -esse -ice -enne -euse

There's also the debate in gendered languages over whether one should never use feminine endings on professions, and keep them generic, or always use them for all professions for consistency, avoiding suggesting certain professions are male vs female, while ensuring women are visible in professions where they used to be rarer.

Re: What happened to the n in restaurateur?

#62

Post by arantius »

burkaman wrote: post #3

This is wild, I have read this word many times but never consciously noticed that there is no N there. I would have bet money that "restauranteur" is the more common spelling in practice, but I'm completely wrong: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=restaurateur%2... .

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=restaura...

Similar in Google trends, but

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=r...

Much smaller difference, when limited to the USA.

Re: What happened to the n in restaurateur?

#63

Post by CRConrad »

tome wrote: post #9

This is just begging the question! So "restaurateur" was first, but did "restaurant" get an "n"? Why isn't it "restaurat"? The reason is that in French (ultimately from Latin) "-ateur" means "person who" and "-ant" means roughly "ing". So a "restaurater" is someone who restores and "restaurant" means "restoring" (i.e. a restoring soup, subsequently place).

If you sweat you're a perspirator, not a perspirantor -- a sweater, not a sweanter -- but you still use an antiperspirant against sweating. See how "sweating" also has an 'n' in it, but "sweater" doesn't? The -ant is just the French version of -ing.

Re: What happened to the n in restaurateur?

#64

Post by CRConrad »

forty wrote: post #32
thaumasiotes wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, the article immediately suggests a related question to me: > BTW, the feminine version of a restaurateur was “restauratrice.” That makes perfect sense, since the feminine agentive suffix in Latin is -rix. But I thought the feminine agentive ending in French was -euse! Where did we get "masseuse"? Wiktionary suggests that -euse is an alternate equivalent of -rice, derived from Latin -osus (which has no agentive m…

I cannot really come up with a good rule, but I notice that words in -teur seem to have a féminin in -trice (restaura-teur/-trice, ama-teur/-trice, institu-teur/-trice, anima-teur/-trice) while other -eur words seem to prefer -euse (mass-eur/-euse, football-eur/-euse, arnaqu-eur/-euse).

> arnaqu-eur/-euse

WTF is that? And more importantly, can I get an armagnaqueur to keep me topped up?

Re: What happened to the n in restaurateur?

#65

Post by CRConrad »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #50
forty wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot really come up with a good rule, but I notice that words in -teur seem to have a féminin in -trice (restaura-teur/-trice, ama-teur/-trice, institu-teur/-trice, anima-teur/-trice) while other -eur words seem to prefer -euse (mass-eur/-euse, football-eur/-euse, arnaqu-eur/-euse).

I should note that in Latin the masculine agentive suffix is definitely -or. It may look like -tor, but that -t- is actually a separate element marking the perfect passive participle form. (From which agent nouns are derived.) Most verbs have a passive participial form that includes the -t-, but in some it's been swallowed by an S. The only example that comes to mind is missus [sent], the passive participle of mitter…

> is missus [sent]

You wish. I sure couldn't send my missus away at the drop of a hat.

___

ETA:

> Missrix just doesn't feel right.

I'm guessing they'd just (re?)insert the 't': "Misstrix" feels quite pronouncable.

Re: What happened to the n in restaurateur?

#66

Post by thaumasiotes »

capitainenemo wrote: post #61
forty wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot really come up with a good rule, but I notice that words in -teur seem to have a féminin in -trice (restaura-teur/-trice, ama-teur/-trice, institu-teur/-trice, anima-teur/-trice) while other -eur words seem to prefer -euse (mass-eur/-euse, football-eur/-euse, arnaqu-eur/-euse).

Yeah, I don't feel like there's any strong rule on these things apart from "what sounds good" unless the male ending exists like -ien I've heard at various times in my life the various feminine endings applied to same profession - people playing around with what sounds good or a generational thing. -esse -ice -enne -euse There's also the debate in gendered languages over whether one should never use feminine endings…

> There's also the debate in gendered languages over whether one should never use feminine endings on professions, and keep them generic, or always use them for all professions for consistency [...]

This is a somewhat different kind of thing. In English, there are plenty of professions with a gendered suffix rather like this. Waiter / waitress; actor / actress; steward / stewardess.

In general, the -ess cannot be used for a word that doesn't already exist; the feminist prescription for a female doctor is "lady doctor", not "doctress". You might also note that the masculine versions of those three examples have three different "suffixes".

But the agentive suffix is always -er, whether the agent is male or female. Professions are conceptually different, and better modeled as opaque words than as stem+suffix combinations.

Re: What happened to the n in restaurateur?

#67

Post by thaumasiotes »

CRConrad wrote: post #65
thaumasiotes wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should note that in Latin the masculine agentive suffix is definitely -or. It may look like -tor, but that -t- is actually a separate element marking the perfect passive participle form. (From which agent nouns are derived.) Most verbs have a passive participial form that includes the -t-, but in some it's been swallowed by an S. The only example that comes to mind is missus [sent], the passive participle of mitter…

> is missus [sent] You wish. I sure couldn't send my missus away at the drop of a hat. ___ ETA: > Missrix just doesn't feel right. I'm guessing they'd just (re?)insert the 't': "Misstrix" feels quite pronouncable.

I don't think -sst- is a possible sequence in Latin. (Neither is -ssr-, but that one suffers from the bigger problem that -sr- probably won't work either.) Mistrix is certainly a word that could exist, but I have no knowledge of whether it would be a correct form for a female sender.

Re: What happened to the n in restaurateur?

#68

Post by CRConrad »

psini wrote: post #60
kgwgk wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> completely incorrectly That meaning is also accepted by the French Academy nowadays: Fig. En parlant d’une période de temps, d’un processus. Commencement, début. À l’entrée de l’hiver. Dès l’entrée du repas. Par métonymie. Mets qui vient après les hors-d’œuvre et précède le plat principal. Une entrée chaude, froide. Servir un vol-au-vent, un soufflé en entrée. Par extension. Plat principal. Un repas composé d’un ho…

I don't know your french level but perhaps you read your quote too fast because it says: "Mets qui vient après les hors-d'œuvre et AVANT le plat principal". So the "entrée" is the dish that comes BEFORE the main dish.

Perhaps you read GP's quote too fast? Because it ends with:

>>>> Par extension. Plat principal. Un repas composé d’un hors-d’œuvre, une entrée et un dessert.

"By extension. Main dish. A meal consisting of an appetizer, an entrée and a dessert."

There the "entrée" is clearly the "main dish".

Re: What happened to the n in restaurateur?

#69

Post by CRConrad »

tetromino_ wrote: post #27
decimalenough wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term is recent. Places where you can pay for food are ancient.

I'm not sure about that. Since ancient times there were places where you could pay for food, but that was always a side business of an establishment whose main purpose was either (a) selling alcohol (or, in some places, coffee or tea) or (b) providing lodging for travelers. I suspect that an establishment whose main purpose is selling food to order may be a fairly recent innovation.

> Since ancient times there were places where you could pay for food, but that was always a side business of an establishment

I don't think that's correct: They've excavated fast-food joints from under the ashes of Pompeii. There's nothing to say a business like that needs to be a side hustle of anything else.

Re: What happened to the n in restaurateur?

#70

Post by implements »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #66
capitainenemo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't feel like there's any strong rule on these things apart from "what sounds good" unless the male ending exists like -ien I've heard at various times in my life the various feminine endings applied to same profession - people playing around with what sounds good or a generational thing. -esse -ice -enne -euse There's also the debate in gendered languages over whether one should never use feminine endings…

> There's also the debate in gendered languages over whether one should never use feminine endings on professions, and keep them generic, or always use them for all professions for consistency [...] This is a somewhat different kind of thing. In English, there are plenty of professions with a gendered suffix rather like this. Waiter / waitress; actor / actress; steward / stewardess. In general, the -ess cannot be use…

> the feminist prescription for a female doctor is "lady doctor", not "doctress"

Being male I hesitate to speak for feminists, but I’m fairly sure at least 2nd wave ones would prefer just “doctor” and would frown on “lady” as an unnecessary qualifier.

Post reply on HN