-ee suffixes are pretty clear cut as far as I can tell and contrast two parties eg employer and employee. There is a usage note I found here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/-ee

Escapee seems unnecessary, however, as there is nothing to contrast it to. Escaper would surely be more sensible? Is it just conformity to the tradition described in the usage note which also cites absentee (and we never hear absenter). Are there any exceptions at all?

Previous thread

The previous thread wasn’t entirely clear, so a brief summing-up might be useful: the suffix -ee denotes the object of a transitive verb (employee, payee) or the subject of an intransitive verb (escapee, retiree).

As to the difference between escapee and escaper, it seems to me that the -ee form is resultative: an escapee is someone who has escaped, while the -er form refers to someone who is actively escaping at the present moment, or who habitually escapes. I haven’t put much thought into whether this distinction holds for other verbs, though.

So it could be said that -ee is the absolutive suffix and -er or -or is the ergative suffix.  Escaper and retirer don’t sound like words that are in common use or, if they are used, differ significantly in meaning from their -ee counterparts.

I’m currently working with a scheme to provide young doctors with more experienced medical practitioners as mentors, and I find that these young doctors are routinely described as “mentees”, as though “mentor” came from a verb “to ment” rather than being a proper Greek name.  It grates on me every time I hear it, but I just don’t think I could make everyone involved in the whole programme call them “mentorees”, however hard I were to try.

Syntinen Laulu - 02 May 2008 12:12 AM

I just don’t think I could make everyone involved in the whole programme call them “mentorees”, however hard I were to try.

It does rather rely on mentor as a verbed noun.  Maybe that’s their problem.

Syntinen Laulu - 02 May 2008 12:12 AM

… a proper Greek name ... however hard I were to try.

If you yell loud enough, will they become stentees? (or you (as stenter instead of Stentor) could insert a stent somewhere which would make them yellers instead of yellees)

Another problem with mentoree is that it violates the absolutive/ergative paradigm.  The absolutive mentoree would require a corresponding mentorer; without it the lone mentoree would imply that the verb mentor was intransitive and the mentoree was performing the action of mentoring.  All in all, I see no solution that would keep everyone happy.  Best to reanalyze the or of mentor as an agentive suffix and stick with mentee as the object of the transitive verb.

Impostor or imposter, (but no impostee): French imposteur, from Latin impostor, one who assigns a name, from impostus, variant of impositus, past participle of impnere, to place upon.  From thefreedictionary again.
Thanks for replies. Looking up ergative.

Warning: Ergative may scramble your brain.  Use with caution.

Here in Rightpondia you can find signs inside buses that give the capacity of the vehicle as (say) 48 seated and 14 “standees” (no scare quotes in original). I amuse myself on boring journeys through rush-hour London wondering if a standee can be someone who has been stood, by a stander.

A senior sub-editor on a national newspaper here once ruled in my hearing that escapee was not to be used, as the “escapees” would properly be the prison wardens ...

If I have been “stood up” on a date, am I a standee?

OED on -ee(1):

3. In a few words, as bargee, devotee, the suffix is employed app. arbitrarily.

and on -ee(2):

of vague meaning and obscure origin. In bootee, coatee, where it has a diminutive force, it may (though not very probably) be an altered form of -Y (in Sc. -ie). In other words, as goatee, settee, the analogies that may have given rise to the suffix are uncertain.

Ignore this if you like and chat among yourselves.

Another problem with mentoree is that it violates the absolutive/ergative paradigm.

Mentor is a transitive verb, therefore mentoree refers to the object. Simple as that. There is no requirement that a paradigm be filled because these are derivational suffixes, not inflectional.

By the way, many languages that are otherwise strictly nominative-accusative (like English) show one or two structures in which transitive object and intransitive subject are grouped together in contrast to transitive subject. This is not ergativity.

nomis - 04 May 2008 08:23 PM

Another problem with mentoree is that it violates the absolutive/ergative paradigm.

Mentor is a transitive verb, therefore mentoree refers to the object. Simple as that. There is no requirement that a paradigm be filled because these are derivational suffixes, not inflectional.

Being a transitive verb it would require someone other than the object to perform the action.  The paradigm is V+er or V+or for the performer and V+ee for the performee.  This would imply mentorer or mentoror for the performer.  If it were an intransitive verb the paradigm would be V+ee for that person who was simultaneously the one who performs the action and the one on whom it is performed.

Note:

When a verb can be both transitive and intransitive, e.g., run, the paradigm seems to default to the V+er, but then this may be due to the dual origins, Germanic and Romance, of the suffix -er.

Or either that or the fact that language is a set of behaviors, not a set of rules, one.

I use the word “fugitive” to circumvent the problem :)

Another irritating neologism used in my own trade (investment banking) is investee , i.e. the company in which an investor has acquired an equity stake. Any idea when / by whom this travesty of a word was first employed?