Spelling of the President's title

[David Bean]

Over the past couple of days, I noticed something that nobody has (in my hearing, at least) mentioned before: as a society, we don't seem to know how to spell the other main title of the President.

Is it 'Convener' or 'Convenor'? I've seen it spelled both ways recently, and it's been driving me mad.

The case for 'Convvenor': it seems to be the way we're spelling it in general. It's spelled that way in the standing orders, on order papers, on the web site, and in just about every other place I've seen it. Except...

The case for 'Convener': that's how it's spelled in the Constitution, or at least in the wersion I have; however, perhaps more importantly, it's how the word is spelled in Graham Stewart's book on the history of the Society. This implies to me that 'Convener' is how it had always been spelled in the past, at least until the early 1990s, but then somebody or other decided to change the 'e' to an 'o'. The other good reason I can think of is that, at least according to every dectionary I've found, 'Convener' is the principal spelling; the Oxford dictionary allows 'Convenor' as an alternative, but that's the only reference I've found to this spelling.

I think we need to decide either to go with one or the other, or to use the two spellings interchangeably and without anyoune complaining when one is used in place of the other. Does anyone have any thoughts?

[Barry Joss]

[s]David Bean wrote on 03:01, 16th Apr 2003:Does anyone have any thoughts?



Oddly enough; yes. In my humble opinion, the spelling should be "Convener". Why? Because "Convenor" supposes maleness on the part of the incumbent and implies the possibility of "Convenatrix".

Now, Mr Wilson and myself rather approved of "Convenatrix" for Miss Weigler, but I doubt it would catch on. So, go for the largely gender neutral, and probably more appropriate "E" spelling.

[Eliot Wilson]

There is an argument, which I would tend more and more to support, that we might resolve this thorny issue by moving towards referring to the Convenor/er as "President", as he/she is President of the Debating Society. In the chamber, of course, I've always preferred "Mr. Speaker" or "Madam Speaker".

[Anon.]

[s]Barry Joss wrote on 00:37, 28th Apr 2003:
Oddly enough; yes. In my humble opinion, the spelling should be "Convener". Why? Because "Convenor" supposes maleness on the part of the incumbent and implies the possibility of "Convenatrix".

Now, Mr Wilson and myself rather approved of "Convenatrix" for Miss Weigler, but I doubt it would catch on. So, go for the largely gender neutral, and probably more appropriate "E" spelling.


But "convenor" is not itself a Latin word (I don't think - though of course it has its root in "convenire"), and so "convenatrix" would be inappropriate as a feminine form.

I don't see why we can't call the President "Mr Convenor" regardless of gender. After all, a female Lord Mayor is not a Lady Mayoress, nor is a female Governor General a Governess (or Governatrix?) General.

[Barry Joss]

A very fair point. I think it's not actually being a Latin word in no way precludes it being pluralised in the Latin manner as many naturalised words are in the English language, however.

That aside, and my facetious suggestion of Convenatrix notwithstanding. Convener is the generally favoured spelling (though who can say what is right or wrong in language), but I'm with Mr Wilson in thinking the President of the Society and Speaker of the House is the way forward.

Convener/or for what its worth became attached to the Society when it became a UMC/Union post and oddly enough is (apart from Disco Convenor) the only one not to be phased out. As I understand it we began with Convenors for Debating, Billiards and Dining (happy days!). In later years we had - for example - House and Fabrics Convenor and Societies' Grants' Convenor and so forth.

So, yes, Wilson, I agree with you. Get rid of it altogether.

[Tom Plant]

The English for "convener" is just that, as one would expect of one who "convenes." The -or ending is an ostentatious manufactured Latinism, and, I believe, the standard American spelling; both of which might give our increasingly ostentatious and American society cause to adopt it, but not, I feel, with good reason.

Squid pro roe, Mr Powers.

[Barry Joss]

Good old Plant!

[Donald Renouf]

The suffixes -or and -er mean exactly the same thing, but the first is from Latin, and the second is from Old English. -Or seems to be used when the word in question is derived from a Latin word (e.g. initiator, debtor, adjudicator, executor). -Er is used when the word is derived from an Old English word, and it also replaces -ier in words from French (e.g. butcher, baker, candlestick-maker).

The application of a Latin suffix to a word derived from the Latin to me seems entirely logical and appropriate, and so I am going to continue to spell it "convenor".

The only word I can think of offhand which could be accused of being one of Mr Plant's "ostentatious manufactured Latinisms" is guarantor, which uses the Latin suffix despite being of Germanic descent via Old French.

As for our increasingly Americanised society, I would have thought "convener" was a more transatlantic spelling. Certainly the Latin suffix seems to be being phased out in cases where either spelling is optional. For example, my father, who works with nuclear stuff and things like that, was a Radiation Protection Advisor under the 1985 government regulations, but a Radiation Protection Adviser under the 1999 regulations.

[Al]

It seems a very peculiar thing, in a country whose languages are many but do not include Latin, to base spelling on a language that is not only long gone but was never spoken in this country at all. What is the point of taking the word "convene", chopping it up, adding a new ending and coming up with "convenor"? A convener convenes. Just as an adviser advises. Where there are alternatives in spelling, it is usually a good idea to opt for the most logical.

[hr]Rompiendo la monotonia del tiempo

[Donald Renouf]

[s]Al wrote on 20:43, 7th Jul 2003:
It seems a very peculiar thing, in a country whose languages are many but do not include Latin, to base spelling on a language that is not only long gone but was never spoken in this country at all.

Was it never? I doubt it. And all spelling is based on etymology.

What is the point of taking the word "convene", chopping it up, adding a new ending and coming up with "convenor"?

...Except that it's not a new ending, but an older ending. And one is not more "English" than the other, they are both equally so, which people seem to be missing.

A convener convenes. Just as an adviser advises.

But so do convenors and advisors.

Where there are alternatives in spelling, it is usually a good idea to opt for the most logical.

Absolutely. And to me, "convenor" is the more logical spelling.

[Al]

Your argument would bear more weight if it wasn't partially constructed on a mistake. The ending -er is ultimately from the Latin -arius and is, therefore, a perfectly acceptable ending for words derived from Latin. Secondly, the word convene is derived from "convenire" and so, if we were holding true to Latin, we should be speaking of a "convenitor". But we don't. Why? Because our language is English and not Latin. Just because a word is derived from a language does not mean that we have to slavishly follow their rules or spelling. We talk of Mark Anthony not Marcus Antonius, Livy not Titus Livius etc. Ultimately, a convener convenes. It is based on the word "convene". Where is the logic in creating a false stem "conven-" just so some people can fly in the face of 2000 years of linguistic development? Is it just in order to live out some bizarre Latinate fantasy?

[hr]Rompiendo la monotonia del tiempo

[Barry Joss]

Excellent. Fisticuffs over suffixes. Only we could manage it. I'll hold yer coats, gents.

[Donald Renouf]

[s]Al wrote on 14:07, 8th Jul 2003:
Your argument would bear more weight if it wasn't partially constructed on a mistake. The ending -er is ultimately from the Latin -arius and is, therefore, a perfectly acceptable ending for words derived from Latin.

There are two sorts of -er; one corresponds to the French -ier, which itself derives from -arius, but the other comes from the Old English -ere. The first of these does not mean precisely the same thing - a butcher isn't someone who butches, for example.



Ultimately, a convener convenes. It is based on the word "convene". Where is the logic in creating a false stem "conven-" just so some people can fly in the face of 2000 years of linguistic development?

But I'm not saying that we should create a false stem in the way you describe. Tacking the suffix onto the English verb is absolutely fine; it's how the language works, after all.

But I don't see where you're getting this idea that -er is somehow more "English" a suffix than -or; they are both as English as each other, and are used in the same way. I just think it's neater to use the suffix derived from one language with the verb derived from the same language, and I am not saying in this that one is necessarily more correct than the other.

Is it just in order to live out some bizarre Latinate fantasy?

Oh, probably.

[John Stewart]

This has got to be the most boring and irrelevant argument in quite a while. No wonder people think the debating society is full of sad gits who spend their lives arguing out irrelevant and unimportant cases of semantics.

To quote the Oxford english dictionary (which may have been done already, but I couldn't endure the boredom of reading this thread in its entirety):

Convener (also Convenor) n. 1 a person who convenes a meeting.

For anyone who cares which spelling Mr Bean actually decides to use I suggest they find a hobby.

Other than linguistics.

Try cross-stitch. It might be right up your alley.

[Al]

Actually, it was quite an interesting discussion until you stuck your nose in. And, if it was so boring, why on earth did you feel you had to add to it?

[hr]Rompiendo la monotonia del tiempo

[Barry Joss]

Indeed. There is no obligation on anyone to post on or read the thread, Mr Stewart. If the topic "Spelling of the President's Title" does not interest you, leave it alone instead of coming in and telling people who are interested that they are sad. Methinks you are not on firm ground there.

Oh, and its less of a linguistic issue and more an etymological one.

[John Stewart]

Forgive me for spoiling your etymological enjoyment.

I'm sure that you, Eliot and Mr Renouf are having great fun debating an issue of such great importance and grave significance to the UDS.

[Donald Renouf]

Why does everything discussed here have to be "of great importance and grave significance to the UDS"? Concentrating solely on matters which will further the interests of the Society seems rather wearisome and almost materialistic - I myself am rather fond of irrelevant and unimportant things, and dislike people who are always striving after gain.

In any case, I, as a member of the Society, care which spelling is to be used in order papers and the like. Although you, Mr Stewart, like to project yourself as some kind of Mosley of the Debating Society, it seems rather presumptuous even for you to dictate what is and is not of great importance to the people who attend debates in St Andrews.

[Barry Joss]

Hear hear, Mr Renouf!

[puzzled]

[s]Al wrote on 20:43, 7th Jul 2003:
It seems a very peculiar thing, in a country whose languages are many but do not include Latin, to base spelling on a language that is not only long gone but was never spoken in this country at all.


??? Once Norman-French fell from favour, it was the main language for the Elite in the church, law, diplomacy, and politics.

And when english had no fixed way of spelling words, it was perfectly obvious to look at latin (which had a more fixed spelling) and use that as basis for spelling english derivations.