Discussion:
Do you consider it proper to use "cite" as a noun in both (Am) & (Br) English?
(too old to reply)
Tomos Davies
2017-04-12 16:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Do you consider it proper to use "cite" as a noun in both (Am) & (Br)
English?

Today, in the iOS newsgroup (Message-ID: <oclb7o$9b4$***@dont-email.me>), I
was kindly reprimanded for using "cite" as a noun (instead of "citation" as
the more correct noun) where I 'dejavued to find only 'sidehand references
discussing "cite" as a noun in this, the canonical, a.u.e newsgroup.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.usage.english/Vn5pcCkc5bw%5B1-25%5D
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.usage.english/cite$20as$20noun/alt.usage.english/qY6RG4oQ6dw/JI32cmnGmZ0J
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.usage.english/cite$20as$20noun/alt.usage.english/qLq2Be9uw10/tha-tlymGGcJ

Since it appears (from that search) that "cite as a noun" hasn't its own
thread, I post that canonical query here for discussion by the cognoscenti.

A key reference may be this blog:
http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/10/cite.html

Which says:
"The Oxford English Dictionary has an entry for the noun
and considers it standard English. In fact, the OED lists
more than half a century of published references for
"cite" used as a shortened form of "citation."

However, that same article also explains:
"The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
(4th ed.) and Merriam-Webster¡Šs Collegiate Dictionary
(11th ed.)¡Xdon¡Št have entries for "cite" as a noun.

Given the Br-AM divergence listed above, would you consider it proper to
use "cite" as a noun in both (Am) and (Br) English?
Hen Hanna
2017-04-12 19:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tomos Davies
Do you consider it proper to use "cite" as a noun in both (Am) & (Br)
English?
was kindly reprimanded for using "cite" as a noun (instead of "citation" as
the more correct noun) where I 'dejavued to find only 'sidehand references
discussing "cite" as a noun in this, the canonical, a.u.e newsgroup.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.usage.english/Vn5pcCkc5bw%5B1-25%5D
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.usage.english/cite$20as$20noun/alt.usage.english/qY6RG4oQ6dw/JI32cmnGmZ0J
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.usage.english/cite$20as$20noun/alt.usage.english/qLq2Be9uw10/tha-tlymGGcJ
Since it appears (from that search) that "cite as a noun" hasn't its own
thread, I post that canonical query here for discussion by the cognoscenti.
http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/10/cite.html
"The Oxford English Dictionary has an entry for the noun
and considers it standard English. In fact, the OED lists
more than half a century of published references for
"cite" used as a shortened form of "citation."
"The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
(4th ed.) and Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
(11th ed.)—don’t have entries for "cite" as a noun.
Given the Br-AM divergence listed above, would you consider it proper to
use "cite" as a noun in both (Am) and (Br) English?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cite#Etymology_2

Etymology 2[edit]
From the first syllable of citation. Analogous to quote, from quotation.


Verb->Noun is just a matter of time, 100 years, maybe a bit more.
but prob. faster from now onwards.

_____________________


command (v.) c. 1300, from Old French comander ..........

command (n.) c. 1400, "order, command," from Old French comand (14c.), from comander (see command (v.)). Meaning "control, authority" is from mid-15c.


HH
Christian Weisgerber
2017-04-12 22:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tomos Davies
"The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
(4th ed.) and Merriam-Webster¡¦s Collegiate Dictionary
(11th ed.)¡Xdon¡¦t have entries for "cite" as a noun.
AHD (5th ed.) has:
Informal
A citation or quotation.

https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=cite
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Dr. Jai Maharaj
2017-04-12 23:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tomos Davies
Do you consider it proper to use "cite" as a noun in both (Am) & (Br)
English?
was kindly reprimanded for using "cite" as a noun (instead of "citation" as
the more correct noun) where I 'dejavued to find only 'sidehand references
discussing "cite" as a noun in this, the canonical, a.u.e newsgroup.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.usage.english/Vn5pcCkc5bw%5B1-25%5D
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.usage.english/cite$20as$20noun/alt.usage.english/qY6RG4oQ6dw/JI32cmnGmZ0J
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.usage.english/cite$20as$20noun/alt.usage.english/qLq2Be9uw10/tha-tlymGGcJ
Since it appears (from that search) that "cite as a noun" hasn't its own
thread, I post that canonical query here for discussion by the cognoscenti.
http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/10/cite.html
"The Oxford English Dictionary has an entry for the noun
and considers it standard English. In fact, the OED lists
more than half a century of published references for
"cite" used as a shortened form of "citation."
"The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
(4th ed.) and Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
(11th ed.)—don’t have entries for "cite" as a noun.
Given the Br-AM divergence listed above, would you consider it proper to
use "cite" as a noun in both (Am) and (Br) English?
Cite lines

http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/10/cite.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://bit.do/jaimaharaj

Loading...