151
The -er suffix
(lemm.ee)
Transcript:
What the heck is with the "-er" suffix?
"I'm a witcher."
"What does a witcher do?"
"I ~~create~~ ~~watch~~ ~~catch~~ ~~breed~~ ~~f***~~ hunt witches."
"I'm a birder."
"What does a birder do?"
"I ~~create~~ ~~catch~~ ~~hunt~~ ~~breed~~ ~~f***~~ watch birds."
"Actually I think several of those could apply..."
I think the confusing-ass formula is this:
A [word1]er is a [word2]er of [word1]s.
I've always thought of it as "Xer" = "someone who Xes". X should be a verb. Builders build. Welders weld. Miners mine.
In the case of birder, birding is an activity, which I guess makes "bird" a verb ("to go birding"). "Witcher" was made up for the setting, but I guess "witch" is similarly a verb there.
What is "birding"? According to dictionary, it's breed, catch, or watch. Fishers fish, right? What is "to fish" really, though? To swim? To be a fish? I mean, you can't extrapolate it from the common verb as a rule, because that doesn't apply to "birding", does it?
So no, I don't think your over-simplification works.
It's not an over-simplification. This is literally just what the -er suffix does, besides the unrelated usage to make comparisons like "louder". Look up "agent noun" for more info.
The common usage is to watch birds. The extension of the verb "bird" into "birder" is also commonly understood to mean someone who watches birds.
What? It means to catch fish. I've never heard any other meaning? Again, it's not based on what a fish does, it's based on what the verb "fish" means, which is to catch fish.
Ignoring the fact that "bird" is a verb with a fairly well-understood meaning, the reason "birder" or any other -er words are ambiguous is because the verbs are ambiguous. Words have multiple meanings... that's just something that they do. That doesn't change the overall rule that "birder" means "someone who birds", it just means you have to figure out which meaning of "bird" (as a verb) it's using.
No, everything you said was addressed and then you brought up a different issue that was supposedly your real point all along (and that I did also address). I see you've opted for the wheeled goalposts for easier mobility. Is this an April Fool's prank?
To be clear: You wanted to know what "fisher" means. The answer is that it means "someone who fishes". If you also don't know what the verb "fishes" means, then you can go look it up in the dictionary like any other word you don't know the meaning of. But "fisher" has a perfectly clear meaning based on the verb "fish" (or multiple potential meanings based on context, if "fish" as a verb has multiple meanings).
Yes it is! It's just not one you recognize!
You're adding an extra noun! It's not "someone who verbs nouns", it's just "someone who verbs". Example: A birder is not "someone who birds birds", it's just "someone who birds", with "bird" meaning "to observe birds". This is easier to see with simpler nouns. Welder = someone who welds. Racer = someone who races. Yodeler = someone who yodels. Singer = someone who sings. The meaning is inconsistent because the verb is different every time! You're not being given a noun and have to guess the verb. You're being given the verb directly. If you don't know what that verb means then yeah you have to look it up, just like EVERY OTHER WORD IN EXISTENCE.
Edit:
You can keep saying stuff like this but every time you do I only relish the irony.
Anyways I decided an example that can't even have a noun might be helpful. This works with any intransitive verb, but the best example I have is probably "worker" = "someone who works". You could also use "yawner", "laugher", "walker", "carer", etc.