A point of language

[marshlander]

Albert has just been home for lunch (which, for Joseph's benefit was pink curly pasta with an olive and tomato sauce and cheese ).

As often happens the conversation fell to discussing points of grammar. As one subject led to another the word,"teabagging" came up (which Albert said was a seminal point in the conversation ... :redface: )

My question is this, assuming the engagement of two people in this activity (at least one of whom would, by definition, have to be male), which of the parties would be the teabagger and which the teabaggee?

Oh, and a supplementary question: can anyone think of any other nouns where the -er and -ee forms are open to debate?

Apologies for posting this in the debates thread. It seemed more appropriate for the chit-chat until I read that one is required to keep one's clothes on in there.

[Shae]

I'd assume that the one doing the teabagging is the teabagger. The one being teabagged is the teabaggee.

I know there are words nouns were -er and -ee are confused, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. I suppose you could say teabagger and teabagged, similar to hunter and hunted.

A matter of personal taste I think. Although I prefer teabaggee. Has a nice ring to it. mile:

[Phil]

teabagger[/i] and which the teabaggee?

Oh, and a supplementary question: can anyone think of any other nouns where the -er and -ee forms are open to debate?

Teabagger bein the one with the dangly bits ontop (amirite)

Along the same lines "mindfucker" and "mindfuckee" had me recently mile:

[marshlander]

I'd assume that the one doing the teabagging is the teabagger. The one being teabagged is the teabaggee.

I know there are words nouns were -er and -ee are confused, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. I suppose you could say teabagger and teabagged, similar to hunter and hunted.

But that is my point. It is precisely NOT like hunter and hunted where the actions are more clearly defined. :confused:

Teabagger bein the one with the dangly bits ontop (amirite)

Along the same lines "mindfucker" and "mindfuckee" had me recently mile:

But isn't there a sense in which your teabagger is also the teabaggee - ie the receiver of attention? :eek:

[fjp999]

But isn't there a sense in which your teabagger is also the teabaggee - ie the receiver of attention? :eek:

sooooo, are ya saying it is a mindset???

[marshlander]

sooooo, are ya saying it is a mindset???

Not necessarily, but I like your thinking. The -er and -ee construction imply active and passive participation, the doer and the done-to, obvious in Shae's example, but not (I think) in this one. Someone must be able to make a decent case for an answer?

I really have far too much time on my hands!!!

[princealbertofb]

So are you a too-much-time-on-my-hands-ER or a too-much-time-on-my-hands-EE ???

[Woolfe]

Lol I think it would have to be open to personal interpretation of grammar, insofar as with no definitive definition (if you'll excuse that slaughtering of grammatic structure) the only alternative would have to be one's own opinion.

That, of course, being entirely my opinion.

=) xxx

[fredv3b]

But that is my point. It is precisely NOT like hunter and hunted where the actions are more clearly defined. :confused:

Sorry but I am not sure I agree with you here on a general point of language. Interviewer and interviewee are clearly defined.

Along the same lines "mindfucker" and "mindfuckee" had me recently mile:

Disagree here too. The whateveree has to be an active participant in the process. The 'mindfuckee' is merely a victim.

Sorry for being pernickity.

[Phil]

Sorry for being pernickity.

We'll let ya off this time