# disoriented/disorientated, disorient/disorientate, orient/orientate, oriented/orientated



## Redline2200

I recently heard on TV the word "disorientated" which to me sounds atrocious, but after doing some research, I found out that there is an actual debate over the words disoriented and disorientated.
I read it is a difference between US English and GB English.
Could any Britons (or any English-speakers for that matter) be so kind as to affirm this and/or give their opinion on the subject?


----------



## la reine victoria

Redline2200 said:


> I recently heard on TV the word "disorientated" which to me sounds atrocious, but after doing some research, I found out that there is an actual debate over the words disoriented and disorientated.
> I read it is a difference between US English and GB English.
> Could any Britons (or any English-speakers for that matter) be so kind as to affirm this and/or give their opinion on the subject?


 
Hi Redline2200,

I always say, "I am feeling disorientated" when I've had too many drinks at a party. Well, when I used to in my youth.  I drink only cranberry juice these days.  

LRV


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Redline2200 said:


> I recently heard on TV the word "disorientated" which to me sounds atrocious, but after doing some research, I found out that there is an actual debate over the words disoriented and disorientated.
> I read it is a difference between US English and GB English.
> Could any Britons (or any English-speakers for that matter) be so kind as to affirm this and/or give their opinion on the subject?


 
I've never heard anyone say oriented, and I take the same view that the Queen takes at her parties - i.e. *orientated*.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

I have heard both. I do not know whether there is any substantial difference except that you are disoriented (as an adjective) but can be disorientated by somebody else.


----------



## Orange Blossom

Good grief!  I've never heard disorientated or orientated.  I would have thought those were back-formations made up for the fun of it.

I have only used and heard: disoriented and oriented.

Orange Blossom


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Orange Blossom said:


> Good grief! I've never heard disorientated or orientated. I would have thought those were back-formations made up for the fun of it.
> 
> 
> Orange Blossom


 
Quite wrong, Blossom. They are used in all seriousness over here in preference to orient and disorient by many educated people.


----------



## mplsray

Thomas Tompion said:


> Quite wrong, Blossom. They are used in all seriousness over here in preference to orient and disorient by many educated people.


 
Furthermore, _disorientate_ is not a back formation from _disorientation._ The Merriam-Webster Unabridged gives its etymology as "1_dis- + orient + -ate._" 

Nor is _orientate_ from _orientation._ The same dictionary gives the etymology of _orientate_ as "French _orient_er (from Middle French) + English _-ate._

There are many other verbs which have an -er ending in French and an _-ate_ ending in English. Presumably what happened was that English borrowed some Latin verbs having the past participle ending _-atus,_ changing it to _at_ then to _ate._ Later, some French verbs ending in _-er_ were borrowed and in some cases,_ -ate_ was added to the root as a result of the influence of the Latin etymology. In the case of _orient_ and _orientate,_ both the root and the root plus _-ate_ were adopted as verbs.


----------



## Amy181

I've heard both of these forms, though in the US, I think that "disoriented" is much more common.


----------



## lola brown

pretty sure americans are the only one's who say "disoriented",.......


----------



## JamesM

lola brown said:


> pretty sure americans are the only one's who say "disoriented",...


 

As for "disorientate" and "disorient", there is a strong sentiment in the U.S. that "disorientate" is not a real word (and neither is "orientate"). This myth is repeated by well-meaning educators. Obviously, this is not true, but we hold on to these word prejudices despite all evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Orange Blossom

> Good grief! I've never heard disorientated or orientated. I would have thought those were back-formations made up for the fun of it.
> 
> I have only used and heard: disoriented and oriented.
> 
> Orange Blossom





Thomas Tompion said:


> Quite wrong, Blossom. They are used in all seriousness over here in preference to orient and disorient by many educated people.



That's why I used the subjunctive in my sentence  .  To expand on my original sentence:

If I had not read this thread and not seen that people from England use 'disorientate' and 'orientate' in their standard English, I would have thought that they were back-formations made up just for the fun of it.
----------
Obviously, I discovered in reading this thread that both those word forms are accepted and standard English in England, but here in the United States I haven't heard either one.  Of course, I haven't been _everywhere _in the United States, so there could very well be places here where those forms _are _used.  Yet another confusion for those learning ESL.

Orange Blossom


----------



## winklepicker

Verb: _orientate_; noun: _orientation *_
Verb: _orient_; noun: _oriention_ presumably?  

(* originally meaning to line up with the East, as you would when building a church, I believe)


----------



## la reine victoria

"We three kings of orient are."

When we are disoriented we can't navigate our way between east and west, or any other direction for that matter, when we've had a few.

This Queen, in her youth, became *disorientated *after quaffing champers at state banquets, and had to be led to her bedchamber.

Now that she's on the cranberry juice, she skips nimbly up the stairs to the welcome comfort of her four-poster, which is always well-aired by a warming pan and a flunkey.  

LRV


----------



## Orange Blossom

So let me see if I have this right:

You use orient and disorient when referring to directions.

You use orientate and disorientate when referring to mental confusion or removing mental confusion?  I'm confused   .

By the way, when I asked my dad if he had ever heard disorientate or orientate he looked at me as though I had a second head, and he's 85 so U.S. English spelling rules and word usage was closer to British English when he went to school than it is now.

Orange Blossom


----------



## Redline2200

How interesting! I never thought that this simple question would bring up such a topic. 
It is obvious after reading this thread that "disoriented" is not at all used in the UK or Australia and "disorientated" is not at all used in the US.
However, it is hard for me to believe that "disoriented" is that foreign to the people outside the US.
I did a search in a British English dictionary (http://www.dictionary.co.uk/) for "disoriented" and found the following:

_*disoriented *_
_adjective (UK ALSO disorientated)_
_confused and not knowing where to go or what to do: _
_- Whales become disoriented in shallow water._

However, after searching "disorientated" in a dictionary that focuses on American English (American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language; link- http://www.bartleby.com/61/) I found this:

_Search Results for “*disorientated*”_​_No documents match the query. _

I find that interesting, that the word "disorientated" is so strange it is not even always found in our dictionaries.

Oh well, such a small difference is really quite unimportant in the grand scheme of things I suppose.

And for the record I would also like to know the answer to Orange Blossom's question:


> So let me see if I have this right:
> 
> You use orient and disorient when referring to directions.
> 
> You use orientate and disorientate when referring to mental confusion or removing mental confusion?


 
Regards!


----------



## gaer

Thomas Tompion said:


> Quite wrong, Blossom. They are used in all seriousness over here in preference to orient and disorient by many educated people.


Disorientate(d), according to my own experience, is 100% correct in BE and is declared sub-standard by people in the US because of ignorance! 

Gaer


----------



## la reine victoria

Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:



> dis•orien•tate, also *dis•orient* /_AmE_, _BrE_) verb
> *1 *to make sb unable to recognize where they are or where they should go: _The darkness had disorientated him._
> *2 *to make sb feel confused: _Ex-soldiers can be disorientated by the transition to civilian life._—compare orient
> dis•orien•tated (also dis•orient•ed) adj.: _She felt shocked and totally disorientated._ dis•orien•ta•tion - noun


 
LRV


----------



## mplsray

gaer said:


> Disorientate(d), according to my own experience, is 100% correct in BE and is declared sub-standard by people in the US because of ignorance!
> 
> Gaer


 
That _disorientated_ is thought to be a back-formation is indeed the result of ignorance, but (as a general principal and without giving an opinion on the word _disorientated_ itself) just because a usage is standard in British English does not keep it from being nonstandard in American English. The pronunciation "et" for _ate,_ for example, is entirely standard in British English and very much nonstandard in American English.


----------



## whatonearth

I'm sure we've had this debate before. Was quite a while ago though I think...anyway, it comes down to;
Oriented = AE
Orientated = BE
That is all. ; P


----------



## gaer

mplsray said:


> That _disorientated_ is thought to be a back-formation is indeed the result of ignorance, but (as a general principal and without giving an opinion on the word _disorientated_ itself) just because a usage is standard in British English does not keep it from being nonstandard in American English.


I never said one word about disorientate/disorientated being standard AE. But I think a usage note is wise in any dictionary, and I appreciate the fact that Cambridge online always seems to give such usage notes. MW also seems to be very good about usage notes. This is something I think American Heritage could improve. 

Gaer


----------



## panjandrum

The OED suggests that orientation may perhaps be "after orientation".
While noting that orient is less common than orientate in BE, vice versa in AE, it also refers almost all definitions of orientate back to an equivalent definition of orient, but not the other way round.

Disorientate is based on dis and orientate; disorient on _désorienter._
The orient versions include much older examples than the orientate versions.

It seems very likely that orient and disorient were the original versions in BE that went across to AE and have remained in use there, uncontaminated by the later introduction in BE of orientate (perhaps from orientation). 

There are many examples of this phenomenon.


----------



## Redline2200

gaer said:


> Disorientate(d), according to my own experience, is 100% correct in BE and is declared sub-standard by people in the US because of ignorance!
> 
> Gaer


I hate to disagree, but the reason we do not use that word has absolutely nothing to do with ignorance. Perhaps you could say that the Americans who condemn "disorientated", _condemn_ it out of ignorance, but the fact that we don't say it is nothing more of a matter of _that's just not how we say it here_  . 
Just another one of the minor differences in our two completey legitimate forms of English...nothing to argue or call names over.



whatonearth said:


> I'm sure we've had this debate before. Was quite a while ago though I think...anyway, it comes down to;
> Oriented = AE
> Orientated = BE
> That is all. ; P


I completely agree.  
Just a minor difference (that wouldn't even hinder communication); nothing more even needs to be said.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

panjandrum said:


> Disorientate is based on dis and orientate; disorient on _désorienter._


 
Hi, Panj.  I'm having trouble getting my head round the distinction you are drawing here: are you saying that _désorienter _is not based on _dés _and _orienter? _


----------



## moo mouse

It's just another one of those words that have become corrupted by Americans (no offence meant - I just mean it has changed) so there are now two ways of saying it and both speakers think the other is wrong! Personally I give a little shudder when I hear 'disoriented' but that's just because it sounds wrong to my British ears!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Redline2200 said:


> Just another one of the minor differences in our two completey legitimate forms of English...nothing to argue or call names over.
> 
> 
> I completely agree.
> Just a minor difference (that wouldn't even hinder communication); nothing more even needs to be said.


 
Except that La Reine V said the following was true of BE:

When we are disoriented we can't navigate our way between east and west, or any other direction for that matter, when we've had a few.

I don't agree with her, but other Brits may.


----------



## panjandrum

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi, Panj. I'm having trouble getting my head round the distinction you are drawing here: are you saying that _désorienter _is not based on _dés _and _orienter? _


The distinction is that disorient came into English fully-formed.
Disorientate was formed in English from dis- and orientate; orientate may well have been formed as a derivation from orientation.

The overall points being to suggest that: 
the orient versions are older than orientate versions and
the AE preference for orient versions is a consequence of their having emigrated using the older versions.


----------



## Redline2200

Thomas Tompion said:


> Except that La Reine V said the following was true of BE:
> 
> When we are disoriented we can't navigate our way between east and west, or any other direction for that matter, when we've had a few.
> 
> I don't agree with her, but other Brits may.


 
Yeah, it just leaves me confused when I am also hearing things like this:



moo mouse said:


> Personally I give a little shudder when I hear 'disoriented' but that's just because it sounds wrong to my British ears!


 
I guess I don't know who to believe.


----------



## moo mouse

Redline2200 said:


> Corrupted eh? You Britons ever use the word "connotation" over there? This would be the case of a negative one attributed to your little word.
> 
> Haha, I'm just playing with you, I just think it is a little comical how every time Americans and Britons start to talk about the English language we can never do it without using loaded words like "corrupted." Does it seem like we can't discuss the issue without someone out of the two groups immediately assuming their form of English is the only correct form in the world?
> 
> How about "evolved" next time instead of "corrupted by the Americans"? It might make more people want to take you seriously  .


Ok I take your point!
I also stand corrected by panj:


panjandrum said:


> The distinction is that disorient came into English fully-formed.
> Disorientate was formed in English from dis- and orientate; orientate may well have been formed as a derivation from orientation.
> 
> The overall points being to suggest that:
> the orient versions are older than orientate versions and
> the AE preference for orient versions is a consequence of their having emigrated using the older versions.


Next time I won't shudder but will remember the one time co-existence of both words and consider each derivation to hold equal worth!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Redline2200 said:


> I guess I don't know who to believe.


You might be forced to take the view that practice varies across the British Isles.  For what it's worth I emailed a friend who is a distinguished British grammarian.  He wrote this morning, as follows:
I dislike orient for orientate, but it is odd that it’s that way round.
This suggests that he's familiar with both, but then he's always going to the States.
I wish LRV would expand her view a little, because I'm not conscious of ever hearing orient or disorient in BE, and that agrees with what so many of the books and people are saying.


----------



## gaer

Redline2200 said:


> I hate to disagree, but the reason we do not use that word has absolutely nothing to do with ignorance.


That is not my point.

My point is that it is quite easy to check sources. Before making any comment on usage, I check at least one BE source and one AE source. It takes a bit of extra time, but I think it is worth it.

I was equally ignorant of BE usage here and once told someone that "disorientat" is wrong, not in the US, but wrong. I was embarrassed later on to find out that I had not found "the rest of the story". 

I'm now aware that there is a usage difference, and I've noticed "disorientate" used by UK authors. I've never seen it used by an AE author.

Panjy has given an excellent summary of the history of "orient/orientate" usage, I think!

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Thomas Tompion said:


> You might be forced to take the view that practice varies across the British Isles. For what it's worth I emailed a friend who is a distinguished British grammarian. He wrote this morning, as follows:
> I dislike orient for orientate, but it is odd that it’s that way round.
> This suggests that he's familiar with both, but then he's always going to the States.
> I wish LRV would expand her view a little, because I'm not conscious of ever hearing orient or disorient in BE, and that agrees with what so many of the books and people are saying.


From personal experience I can tell you that "disorientate" is the choice in books written in BE.

I would say the difference is almost as clear as "flashlight/torch". 

Gaer


----------



## ElaineG

For those who would argue that orient/disorient is unknown in the UK, I offer this quote from Robert Burchfield:



> I have decided to use the shorter form myself in all contexts, but the saving is not great. And one can have no fundamental quarrel with anyone who decides to use the longer of the two words."


 
So that is at least one authoritative British source who prefers orient/disorient, although he also puts paid to the American urban myth that orientate is not a word.


----------



## cuchuflete

Interesting point, ElaineG...
Burchfield can hardly be accused of an AE bias, as he was a New Zealander.
He was also a Rhodes scholar, editor of the third edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage,
and editor of the OED for nearly thirty years.


----------



## panjandrum

Hand up from a wee corner of the UK.

I can't bear orientate and disorientate. It's probably something to do with living on the western fringes, or the fact that every family in my part of the world is claimed as ancestry by some crowd of AE-speakers somewhere. I quite happily use orient, oriented, disorient, disoriented - though not often. 

The orientated version is very clunky, particularly in the case of xxxx-oriented. For example, safety-orientated   Why should I bother when safety-oriented sounds so much better and is perfectly acceptable.


----------



## ElaineG

cuchuflete said:


> Interesting point, ElaineG...
> Burchfield can hardly be accused of an AE bias, as he was a New Zealander.
> He was also a Rhodes scholar, editor of the third edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage,
> and editor of the OED for nearly thirty years.


 
 I didn't know he was from New Zealand actually, but I did leave out of my post the key information (which was really the point of the post) that he was an editor of Fowler's and not just some random bloke.  Thanks for helping to make sense of my ramblings.


----------



## gaer

panjandrum said:


> Hand up from a wee corner of the UK.
> 
> I can't bear orientate and disorientate. It's probably something to do with living on the western fringes, or the fact that every family in my part of the world is claimed as ancestry by some crowd of AE-speakers somewhere. I quite happily use orient, oriented, disorient, disoriented - though not often.
> 
> The orientated version is very clunky, particularly in the case of xxxx-oriented. For example, safety-orientated  Why should I bother when safety-oriented sounds so much better and is perfectly acceptable.


[…] Let's call the whole thing off.  <humming famous song>

I assume you are indicating your preference and not what you consider "more correct"!

For me the the best part about being reasonably knowledgeable about both AE and BE is that it gives me more choices. If disorientate disorients me, I can make my own judgement or judgment. 

Gaer


----------



## panjandrum

gaer said:


> […]
> I assume you are indicating your preference and not what you consider "more correct"! [...]


 That's right. It's clear from the evidence that both are correct and both are currently used in BE.


----------



## gaer

panjandrum said:


> That's right. It's clear from the evidence that both are correct and both are currently used in BE.


I was 99% sure, just wanted to confirm my assumption. 

Gaer


----------



## jessica823

This is something I just researched and that is why I am late to this topic. Anyway, I prefer to "disorient" over "disorientate." The latter just seems like overkill. In fact, what sparked me to research this was because I was watching a DVD that had a British narrator and he said "disorientate" and it just didn't sound right to me.

_[moderator note: Welcome to the forum!  Your off-topic comments were removed.  Please search for "pronunciate" using the search function and add any relative comments there.]_


----------



## nzfauna

Both are correct.

I use both, but prefer disorientated.

To me, when i hear disorient, I can't help but think of someone who has been taken out of the East.  LOL!


----------



## vamink

Orange Blossom said:


> Good grief! I've never heard disorientated or orientated. I would have thought those were back-formations made up for the fun of it.
> 
> I have only used and heard: disoriented and oriented.
> 
> Orange Blossom


 I have quite the opposite opinion .

*Good grief! I've never heard *disoriented or oriented*. I would have thought those were back-formations made up for the fun of it.

I have only used and heard: *disorientated* and *orientated.*


----------



## JamesM

vamink said:


> I have quite the opposite opinion .
> 
> *Good grief! I've never heard *disoriented or oriented*. I would have thought those were back-formations made up for the fun of it.
> 
> I have only used and heard: *disorientated* and *orientated.*


 
I hope that by reading this thread (and not just posting to it) you have found that your opinion is not based on facts from any authoritative source. 

Both are used, both are acceptable, both are common in BE while AE, for the most part, uses "orient", but "orient" is apparently the older of the two.


----------



## James Wolfe

An interesting thread, thank you. Until I found it and did some further research, I was firmly of the opinion that Orient/Disorient as verbs were simply another US bastardisation of the English language. This does not now appear to be necessarily so, as many sources suggest that Orient/Orientate etc. both have their origins in the early 15th century.

I recall the shorter version first becoming used in the UK some 25 years or so ago. I would think that it is now more used than the longer version, but I may be wrong.

Two things, however, point towards the longer version being more correct. A previous contributor touched upon the French verb _Orienter,_ which seems to be the origin, and the fact that many French _-er _verbs take on the suffix _-ate _when adopted by English _viz. Donner - donate, Pénétrer - penetrate._

Secondly, and this is often an acid test, one should look at the noun which is formed from the verb root. Is there a noun _Oriention_? Is there a noun _Orientation_? Res ipsa loquitur. I think.

A most useful site, by the way.


----------



## kitenok

> Two things, however, point towards the longer version being more correct. A previous contributor touched upon the French verb _Orienter,_ which seems to be the origin, and the fact that many French _-er _verbs take on the suffix _-ate _when adopted by English _viz. Donner - donate, Pénétrer - penetrate._
> 
> Secondly, and this is often an acid test, one should look at the noun which is formed from the verb root. Is there a noun _Oriention_? Is there a noun _Orientation_? Res ipsa loquitur. I think.


 
By this logic, we should certainly consider _visitate_ more correct than _visit, adorate _more correct than _adore_, _detestate_ more correct than _detest_, _presentate_ more correct than _present_, _acclaimate_ more correct than _acclaim_, _accusate _more correct than _accuse, invitate_ more correct than _invite_, and so on and so forth. Etymology, it seems to me, is nothing compared to usage and familiarity when determining what is "correct."


_Edit_: Welcome to the Forum, by the way!


----------



## James Wolfe

Quite correct! However, the examples you have given probably all have their origins in Latin (_donner_ does, as well, of course!). Maybe I should just have stuck with the noun argument. As you say, common usage will win the day, in any case.


----------



## kthxbai

Etymology is tricky. The stems from which the words are derived are different verbal forms.

_orient _can be traced back to the stem of the Latin present participle; _oriens, orientis_ (rising). 

On the other hand, _donation_, for instance, can be traced back to the perfect passive _donatus_ (having been given) from which comes the Latin noun _donatio, donationis_ (something given).

There is a tendency for word forms to become regularized on the basis of such reasoning as in post #43;  it seems that words with apparently similar meanings should have similar endings.  Hence "orientate" for instance, has come to be accepted.  However, its etymology does not give it priority.


----------



## Elkapitan

I believe another reason for using distoriented in the US and disorientated in Britain has more to do with pronunciation.

Firstly, Americans have the tendency to shorten English words. Secondly Americans also pronounce "T" as "D" hence to pronounce disorientated as the british it would sound in american as "disorientaded" which sounds weird. So the shortened version of the word is used in US.

Thats what I believe anyway in addition to its etymology. Im in asia and we use disorientated. I only use the shortened version when saying something like - "It is very business-oriented".


----------



## mplsray

Elkapitan said:


> I believe another reason for using distoriented in the US and disorientated in Britain has more to do with pronunciation.
> 
> Firstly, Americans have the tendency to shorten English words. Secondly Americans also pronounce "T" as "D" hence to pronounce disorientated as the british it would sound in american as "disorientaded" which sounds weird. So the shortened version of the word is used in US.
> 
> Thats what I believe anyway in addition to its etymology. Im in asia and we use disorientated. I only use the shortened version when saying something like - "It is very business-oriented".



As an American who uses the intervocalic alveolar flap when pronouncing a word such as _butter_--which is what is usually involved in American English, rather than the consonant /d/--the pronunciation of _disorientated_ with a flap for the second _t_ doesn't strike me as odd in the slightest. Without any perceived oddness, there is no incentive to change the pronunciation, so I don't agree with you that this aspect of pronunciation is relevant to why many Americans avoid _orientate_ and related words.

_Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage,_ however, comes to the following pronunciation-related conclusion, in its entry "orientate":



> _Orientate,_ first attested in 1849 in the same issue of the same journal that first used _orientation,_ has been under critical fire since 1945; the frequency of criticism seems to have increased in recent years. After you have weeded out the ill-considered or uninformed commentary, the criticism comes down to this: _orientate_ is three letters and one syllable longer than _orient._ That would seem like a rather trivial concern, but the word seems to draw criticism for no better reason than that.



I must note, however, that the etymology of _orient, orientate,_ and their related words does not support your theory that the disuse of _disorientated_ by Americans has something to do with a supposed American tendency to shorten English words, because _orient, oriented,_ and _disoriented_ are not shortened forms of _orientate, orientated,_ and _disorientated._


----------



## NeoRetro10K

I think they are both correct, but, if you are writing a formal paper, it's probably best to stick to using just one of them if you have it in there multiple times.


----------



## JJ_

Very interesting discussion.  I found it by googling for disoriented vs disorientated after being piqued by hearing yet another usage of disorientated on British TV.  

My take as a non-grammarian but otherwise hopefully intelligent speaker of HM English is that disorientated is something of a UK neologism; a bastardization that is to be avoided in favour of the US English "oriented".  Disorientated sounds clumsy and frankly rather ugly and in my experience most things that sound clumsy in any language are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Let's think about this.  Disoriented/disorientated is an adjective.
One uses the -ate(d) suffix; the other does not (rather it just has the appended "d").
The suffix -ate is I believe NOT added to verbs to form an adjective when the verb ends in a "t" (perhaps it is not added to verbs at all to form an adjective but let us at least narrow the scope of the analysis to something manageable).

E.g.: 
accredit --> accredited (not accreditated)
debit --> debited (not debitated)
abstract --> abstracted (not abstractated)
accost --> accosted (not accostated)
admit --> admitted (not admitated)
enlist --> enlisted (not enlistated)
encrypt --> encrypted (not encryptated)

Now I'm not sure whether all of the above are adjectives but you get the point.  If somebody can point out a verb that ends in a "t" and which is adjectivized by the addition of -ate then I would be interested to hear it.


We British English speakers are fond of lamenting/lambasting/teasing the Yanks for bastardizing our beautiful language (ax/e, anyone? LOL) but there are many cases where the British English variant is itself a bastardization (along with the rather regrettable misuse of "less" vs "fewer" (for countables) or "which" vs "that" (for restrictive clauses)) and I feel that this is one of them.


----------



## Loob

JJ_ said:


> The suffix -ate is I believe NOT added to verbs to form an adjective when the verb ends in a "t" (perhaps it is not added to verbs at all to form an adjective...
> If somebody can point out a verb that ends in a "t" and which is adjectivized by the addition of -ate then I would be interested to hear it.


I can't, I'm afraid.

But then it's the verb _disorientate_ that ends in -ate, and the past participle adjective _disorientated_ which is derived from it....


----------



## lianafelice

Loob said:


> I can't, I'm afraid.
> 
> But then it's the verb _disorientate_ that ends in -ate, and the past participle adjective _disorientated_ which is derived from it....



This is not entirely true, Merriam-Webster defines the verb _disorientate_ as _disorient_, while _disorient_ is given a full definition; i.e. to cause to lose bearings.  Interestingly enough, Merriam-Webster also gives _disorient_ a Circa 1655 stamp, while _disorientated_ gets a Circa 1704 stamp.  Not much of a notable difference in the timeline, but there it is.

I stumbled upon this topic after watching my newly purchased copy of Planet Earth, narrated by the fabulous Mr. David Attenborough.  He continually used _disorientated,_ and it became more and more irksome the more I heard it.  I finally decided to to some research on-line about the word and it's use, which lead me here.

It seems to me the two have been in use so long, it's silly to say which is the "correct" form.  I agree it all has to do with the timing of the pilgrimage to what is now The United States, seeing as that happened just prior to _disorientated_'s first accepted use.

Wonderful thread by the way, I really enjoyed reading it!


----------



## mplsray

lianafelice said:


> This is not entirely true, Merriam-Webster defines the verb _disorientate_ as _disorient_, while _disorient_ is given a full definition; i.e. to cause to lose bearings.  Interestingly enough, Merriam-Webster also gives _disorient_ a Circa 1655 stamp, while _disorientated_ gets a Circa 1704 stamp.  Not much of a notable difference in the timeline, but there it is.
> 
> I stumbled upon this topic after watching my newly purchased copy of Planet Earth, narrated by the fabulous Mr. David Attenborough.  He continually used _disorientated,_ and it became more and more irksome the more I heard it.  I finally decided to to some research on-line about the word and it's use, which lead me here.
> 
> It seems to me the two have been in use so long, it's silly to say which is the "correct" form.  I agree it all has to do with the timing of the pilgrimage to what is now The United States, seeing as that happened just prior to _disorientated_'s first accepted use.
> 
> Wonderful thread by the way, I really enjoyed reading it!



*Loob'*s point in her last post was quite correct.

The Oxford English Dictionary explicitly derives _disorientation_ from _disorientate,_ giving the etymology of _disorientation_ as "n. of action from prec. vb." 

The preceding verb was _disorientate,_ in which entry the past participle and adjective _disoriented_ is shown to be direct derivation of the verb.

It is in the etymologies of _orientate_ and _orientator_ that the possibility that the process of back-formation is involved is mentioned.

The etymology given for _orientate_ is:


> < ORIENT _n._ + -ATE _suffix3,_ perhaps after ORIENTATION _n._ Compare slightly earlier ORIENTATOR _n._



The etymology given for _orientator_ is:



> < ORIENT _v._ + -ATOR _suffix,_ after ORIENTATION _n._ Compare French _orienteur_ (1832). Compare slightly later ORIENTATE _v._



The word "perhaps" indicates that even the editors of the OED are not certain that _orientate_ is the product of a back-formation.

The only etymology given for _disorientate_ is "DIS- 6." We must assume that this indicates that _disorientate_ comes from _dis-_ prefixed to _orientate._

There is thus no evidence furnished by the OED that _disorientate_ is a back-formation of _disorientation._

I expect that the fact that the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines _disorientate_ in terms of _disorient_ is a function of nothing more than the fact that in American English, _disorientate_ is the rarer form.

I just found an interesting bit of trivia. According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage the word _orientate_ first appeared in 1849, but it was not subject to critical attack until 1945.


----------



## lianafelice

I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear in my post.  I did not mean that Loob was incorrect, I meant only what was being said wasn't entirely accurate.  I was coming at this from the point of view it wasn't the conjugation that was in question, but rather which verb was the correct verb to be conjugating.

I have a stance I take on questionable words, and this is by no means a very good stance or even one easily supported by anyone other than myself.  When looking up a word to see which is the more "correct" form to use, you frequently happen upon a situation such as I cited from Merriam-Webster.  If we take _irregardless_ for example, the definition itself is given as _regardless_ (this is a poor example because of the usage note on this one, but it was the first to come to mind).  In my mind, since regardless is the very definition of irregardless, the former is the more correct to use.  (Aside from the fact that irregardless sounds atrocious, again a poor example.)

I was simply using that same theory when tracking down the correct version of _disorient_.  The definition of _disorientate_ in Merriam-Webster is _disorient_, and is given a first use Circa 1848 which is slightly later than _disorient_ leading me (in my mind) to believe _disorient_ to be the more correct of the two.  But also as I said earlier, the dates are so close together in the bigger picture, it's nearly impossible to say which is more correct since they have both been in use for roughly the same amount of time.  I will continue to prefer disorient, but only because I'm American and that is what is almost exclusively used here in the States.


----------



## mplsray

In the case of _irregardless,_ Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary explicitly labels it "nonstandard."

In the case of _miniscule_, however, there is only the label "variant" and a usage note which mentions that it "now occurs commonly in published writing, but it continues to be widely regarded as an error." The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage, prepared under the same usage philosophy and likely with many of the same editors, is explicit in considering _miniscule_ to be a standard variant. (Note that the label _variant_ is explicitly used in M-W dictionaries to refer to all _standard_ versions of a word.)

What that usage guide says of _orientate_ includes this statement:



> After you have weeded out the ill-considered or uninformed commentary, the criticism comes down to this: _orientate_ is three letters and one syllable longer than _orient._ That would seem like a rather trivial concern, but the word seems to draw criticism for no better reason than that.



So again, I come to the conclusion that the fact _orientate_ is defined in terms of _orient_ in the M-W Online Dictionary has nothing to do with a belief on the editors' part that there is something "wrong" with _orientate._


----------



## panjandrum

What is wrong with orientate today is what was wrong with it before this thread began.  Being aware of both orient and orientate in use, neither being particularly common, I find the version with the extra syllable and the clunky sound gives the impression of being a back formation.


----------



## mplsray

panjandrum said:


> What is wrong with orientate today is what was wrong with it before this thread began.  Being aware of both orient and orientate in use, neither being particularly common, I find the version with the extra syllable and the clunky sound gives the impression of being a back formation.



"Clunky sound" is entirely subjective, and there is no rational reason to oppose a back-formation--such opposition is a subjective matter at best and a form of the etymological fallacy at worse. An English which existed with only the verb _orient_ would be no more or less an effective medium of communication than would an English which existed with only the verb _orientate._ 

Of course, if enough people have a given subjective reaction, that will lead to language change. (Consider the case of _haycock_ becoming _hay shock_ in parts of the US, which I mentioned in the 'shack of hay' thread.)


----------



## soulsurfer

I could be wrong but I think it means something like this (although I couldn't find anything to back me completely up).  Dis-ori-ent-ate
Ori, I think, means rise or maybe 'be enlightened' or see, also used in oracle (although the etymology says oracle comes oro (to pray).  But if ori means enlightened, centered, in knowledge, etc, then -ent would be something along 'existing in' or 'the state of being in'. So if you are oriented, you are in knowledge or focus of a certain topic. "This speech is business-oriented" meaning focused on the topic of business. Disoriented, obviously is the opposite (unfocused, etc). "I was disoriented after I hit my head."  Orientate means to make focused, enlightened on a subject, etc. In US, it's actually common to have a school orientation before starting a university. (Where -ion obviously makes the verb ending in -ate into a noun) In US, we don't use orientate too much, but it's certainly valid if you are making someone oriented. "I am orientating him on how to run this office." And so someone who was disoriented, was disorientated by something. "The spinning room disorientated him, so he felt disoriented." I hope that makes sense. (By the way, you can't orient someone or disorient them. That would be bad english.) On a side note, you could say "I am disoriented."(adjective) or "I am disorientated."(verb) sort of like "I am awake." and "I am awakened."


----------



## kirkie

For South Africans (British colony 1806-1961), where we are used to the British standard of English, (dis)orientate and (dis)orientation is the correct use to describe directional confusion.

Oriented and disoriented sounds so strange, and make one here think more in terms of the Orient - to align with the Far Eastern way of doing things, and not the direction towards the east.

It reminds me of the US spelling of color, compared to the UK version colour.

In SA we have so many languages, that we prefer to rather keep by the standard of the inventors of the English language, and as we learnt it in our upbringing, although we recognise the US spelling and usages, seeing that we come in contact with so many diverse cultures and preferences.


----------



## panjandrum

_<< Moderator note.
This is just a reminder that the topic of the thread is set out clearly at the beginning.
Please ensure that your posts specifically address the topic and do not introduce tangential issues.
panjandrum >>_


----------



## loverofwords

Thank you all for such a fascinating discussion.  I had no idea when I googled my question of whether there is a difference between disoriented and disorientated, what I would find.  I had never heard of the word disorientated (much it sounds like the experience of British English users never hearing of our use of disoriented)  until I came across the following sentence in Birdsong by Sebastian Faulks, "He stood for a moment disorientated, unsure which of the four glass-panelled doors that opened off the hall was the one through which he was supposed to go."  I learned a lot through all these posts!


----------



## Sweet Whiskey Mama

I was born and bred in a country speaking American English widely, it having been a US colony for almost a century. I was schooled in Belgian English, which leant heavily towards British English. In adulthood, I came to work for the British Embassy, and I guess it's fair to surmise that the British diplomats are among the best exponents of HM English. I then came to admire the precision of UK English even more. It's not only precise -- it is crisp and succint as well.

In the Embassy, the UK-based staff uniformly used the word 'orient' only as a noun (and never as a verb) -- to mean East; and it's only other derivative similarly used being the word 'oriental', another noun, meaning Easterner (Asian). 'Orientate' is a verb, THE verb as a matter of fact, to connote familiarity -- to familiarise, introduce, provide one's bearings, etc. Everything else follows from there: orientated, disorientate, disorientated. 

Ergo, as far as I'm concerned, it is precise and confusion-free to use 'orient' only as a noun, and 'orientate' as a root verb. In the same vein, it would be sensible/ logical to use as an adjective the word 'disorientated' when one 'is puzzled', rather than 'disoriented' -- which, I agree, indeed seems to refer to 'somebody being thrown out of the East'.


----------



## kubrickrules

It sure would be nice if, when referring to American English, people could refer to Canadian English as well, as American English isn't the only other English in the world besides UK English. Canadian English is closer to UK English than American English, but I'm pretty sure Canadians do not use "disorientated."


----------



## Sweet Whiskey Mama

I think that is preceisely why, in this thread, people are not making any reference to Canadian English. You yourself say that Canadian English has more similarity to UK English, yet you do not use 'disorientated'. That neither makes the British usage of 'disorientated' wrong, nor the non-reference to Canadian English anybody's shortcoming.


----------



## kubrickrules

That wasn't my point. What I meant was, it is strange that when people want to know what the Americans say (when they don't know), they only ask about what Americans say, not paying any attention to what Canadians say, the country of Canada being physically located directly to the north, and part of the same land mass. To make a definitive conclusion on who says what must include Canadian English. One cannot say that Canadian English is of no concern. Canadian uses "disorient" (to the best of my knowledge), but it also uses "colour," "cheque," etc.


----------



## JulianStuart

Having lived in Canada for three years, I think I can say that Canadian English, while sharing much of its usage with British English, is also heavily influenced by the proximity of the US and could confidently predict that a survey would demonstrate mixed usage between dis/orient and dis/orientate, depending on how much US influence the speaker had absorbed.  (One might even expect some sort of residual relationship between usage and distance from the nearest US TV station )

To your other point, I think when people say "American English" they are (for better or worse from the perspective of the other geographically American countries) using the adjective politically not geographically.  There are many foreros who identify their English as Indian, Australian, NZ, Canadian etc, as you have, specifically for this purpose.


----------



## kubrickrules

Mixed usage/spelling is indeed a fact of Canadian English.


----------



## Cagey

We are pleased when speakers of less well-represented varieties of English contribute to our threads.  

Welcome, and thank you.


----------



## kubrickrules

Hi Cagey, and thank you for having me.


----------



## Sweet Whiskey Mama

Meant no disrespect, Kubrickrules. And am grateful too for your warm welcome, Cagey.


----------



## GreyArea

JJ_ said:


> Now I'm not sure whether all of the above are adjectives but you get the point. If somebody can point out a verb that ends in a "t" and which is adjectivized by the addition of -ate then I would be interested to hear it.



I fear your basic premise may be flawed...the verb does NOT end in a "t" because the verb is NOT "Orient", it is "Orientate". "Orient" is a noun referring to "The East". All the adjective is doing is adding a "d". For instance "Annotate" becoming "Annotated"...as far as I'm aware AE speakers do not "Annot", though I have seen use of "Annoted".


----------



## JamesM

Actually, there is a verb "to orient" in AE, as in "orient the solar panels to receive maximum southern exposure".  That's basically the gist of this conversation.    As far as I know, the OED also recognizes "orient" as a verb as well.


----------



## GreyArea

But as you say that is the gist of the argument...is the verb orient or orientate? Your argument is assuming orient is right and then trying to adectivize it...that's specious reasoning!

If you accept orientation over oriention, why does orientated sound so wrong over oriented?


----------



## JulianStuart

GreyArea said:


> But as you say that is the gist of the argument...is the verb orient or orientate? Your argument is assuming orient is right and then trying to adectivize it...that's specious reasoning!
> 
> If you accept orientation over oriention, why does orientated sound so wrong over oriented?



I think post # 19 in this thread from 2007 (from a BrE speaker, by the way) sums up the situation about as succinctly as it can be


whatonearth said:


> I'm sure we've had this debate before. Was quite a while ago though I think...anyway, it comes down to;
> Oriented = AE
> Orientated = BE
> That is all. ; P


One word is used (i.e."correct") in one form of English and the other in the other_.
How_ they came to be different is another story


----------



## GreyArea

JulianStuart said:


> I think post # 19 in this thread from 2007



Not sure why you feel it necessary to quote the age of the thread, when according to various sources this argum...disput...DISCUSSION has been going on since at least 1945...


----------



## JulianStuart

It was only to point out, in passing, that the thread we are participating in is almost as old as this forum, but the main relevance of the citation was the statement of the situation.  That's just the way things are in the differences bewteen AE and BE. Any further resurrection of the discussion of the logic or correctness of one or the other does not change the essence of that summary.  If anything it is inaccurate only in that it implies orientated is _preferred_ in BE, while it would seem to be more accurate to express it as: it is orientated that is rare in AE but accepted in BE, and oriented is common in both!

Funny you mention 1945 (arbitrarily or with reason, I wonder?) because it was not until around that time that oriented started to become _much_ preferred over orientated in _British_ English, according to the Ngram viewer from Google's extensive database of printed works - the obvious caveat being uncertainty as to how they assign a work to AE or BE


----------



## JamesM

GreyArea said:


> But as you say that is the gist of the argument...is the verb orient or orientate? Your argument is assuming orient is right and then trying to adectivize it...that's specious reasoning!
> 
> If you accept orientation over oriention, why does orientated sound so wrong over oriented?



I think it's a learned reaction, don't you?    I accept "presentation" and "present", "conversation" and "converse", "augmentation" and "augment". "Orientation" and "orient" look consistent with that pattern to me.    "Orientated" sounds as odd to me as "presentated", "conversated" and "augmentated".  For all of those I would add only "ed". 

I'm not saying that one is better than the other.  I am only explaining the mindset where "orient" and "orientation" does not seem inconsistent.


----------



## GreyArea

Trying to think of a similar example,  and all I can get is comment and commentate but they are substantially different...and the aforementioned annotate.

Again you refer to "only adding -ed" as if orient is the starting point, but it's not...or rather the roots of either orient or orientate are as much in dispute.

And I mentioned 1945 because it was already mentionated (! ) in this or another thread.


----------



## Cenzontle

The _Oxford English Dictionary_'s etymology of "orientate" says "perhaps after ORIENTATION".  
It further says 





> More commonly used in British English than _orient_, while the latter is the more frequent of the two in American English. _Orientate _is commonly regarded as an incorrect usage in American English.



The Ngram Viewer contradicts the _OED_'s statement that _orientate _is "More commonly used in British English than _orient_" ,
although "to orient" is only a little more than twice as frequent as "to orientate" in BE, according to the Viewer.


----------



## mplsray

Cenzontle said:


> The _Oxford English Dictionary_'s etymology of "orientate" says "perhaps after ORIENTATION".
> It further says
> 
> The Ngram Viewer contradicts the _OED_'s statement that _orientate _is "More commonly used in British English than _orient_" ,
> although "to orient" is only a little more than twice as frequent as "to orientate" in BE, according to the Viewer.



That link is to a version of Google's Ngram Viewer which separates the two phrases by a slash, when they should be separated by a comma, as here.


----------



## JulianStuart

mplsray said:


> That link is to a version of Google's Ngram Viewer which separates the two phrases by a slash, when they should be separated by a comma, as here.


The slash is actually an operator which allows the Ngram _ratio_ to be presented.  This can be done separately for GB and US corpora and both plotted on the same graph as here. This shows that the preference for oriented over orientated is much stronger in US than GB. (Subject as always to the imprecision in the database)


----------



## Cenzontle

> a version of Google's Ngram Viewer which separates the two phrases by a slash


On the Viewer, if you separate phrases with a comma, you get a separate line on the graph for each one.
If you separate them with a slash (/), it means "X divided by Y"—in other words the ratio of the first expression to the second one.


----------

