# agent / instrument



## Gavril

In English, the suffix _-er_ is used to form agent and instrument nouns:

_drive_ -> _driver_ "person who drives"

but also,

_drive_ -> _driver_ "instrument used for driving" (on a computer, etc.)

In Finnish, though, there are different suffixes used for instruments and agents:

_palvella_ "serve" -> _palvelija_ "person who serves, servant"

but _palvella_ -> _palvelin_ "server" = "machine that manages a computer network"

In some words, the agent suffix _-ja_ is also used for instruments: _vastata _"answer" -> (_puhelin_)_vastaaja_ "answering machine".

Does your language have separate ways of forming agent nouns and instrument nouns? Do you make further distinctions than these?


----------



## jazyk

I don't think there's a distinction in Portuguese. The suffixes or and ora can refer to people of machines:

ator - actor (person)
diretor - director (person)
lavadora - washing machine (machine)
computador - computer (machine)

I think theoretically a _lavador_ could be a person who washes and a _computador_ could be a person who computes, but in practice they are not like this.

There's also the suffix _eiro_, but I think this is only for people:

fazendeiro - farmer (person)
lavadeira - washer, a laundry worker (person)


----------



## DearPrudence

In *French* either I don't think there is such distinction. Be it for persons or objects, we use "eur / euse" (but "eur / rice" (e.g directeur / directrice) is only for persons though)

persons
un directeur / une directrice (a manager)
un acteur / une actrice (an actor)
un chanteur / une chanteuse (a singer)

things
un répondeur (an answering machine)
un compteur (a meter)


----------



## ThomasK

Dutch: I think the situation is similar to French. We can say 'aanrader', a hint, which is literally a 'recommender'. 

Yet, I am not sure the question is correct. I mean: for an instrument to become an actor, the instrument is personalised, I think, which implies that no special ending is necessary, or it is a cause, I think, or a factor (-or !). So I think it can only be an actor when we use the word in a figurative sense. 

Just by the way: I'd like to have some feedback from Fins on the precise nature of the _-in_ suffix. Is it so 'instrumental' ?


----------



## hui

> Just by the way: I'd like to have some feedback from Fins on the precise nature of the _-in_ suffix. Is it so 'instrumental' ?


The*-in *suffix is used to form an instrument name from a transitive verb. The* -ja *suffix is used to form an agent name from any verb. Examples:

_soittaa_ - to play music
_soitin_ - a musical instrument (or a music player like iPod)
_soittaja_ - a person who plays music (or a musician)

_laskea_ - to calculate (or count)
_laskin_ - a calculator
_laskija_ - a person who counts (or calculates)

_kolkuttaa_ - to knock
_kolkutin_ - a (door) knocker
_kolkuttaja_ - a person who knocks

Not all possible "in-suffix" instrument names are used, either because the instrument does not exist, or the word with the* -in *suffix does not sound natural, or there is another name for it.


----------



## ThomasK

The laskin reminds me of the French _ordinateur_, German _Rechner_, both words for computer (-er). I would not really call them instrumental suffixes, but simply object peformative or agent suffixes : they perform the activity, and of course we find it more normal to refer to them as instruments because we cause them to perform as instruments (we use them). The only difference between Finnish and other languages in my view is that they have an object suffix. Am I mistaken?


----------



## Gavril

I'm not sure I understand your objection to the concept of "instrument". I think the distinction between "agent" and "instrument" is commonly conceived of in this way:

- An agent has a mind and a will, through which he/she performs an action
- An instrument is an object with no mind or will, and only performs actions because an agent has set it in motion to do so

The Finnish suffix _-in _seems to fit with the above definition of "instrument" fairly well, though maybe not perfectly. A large number of Finnish words for modern devices or tools contain this suffix (e.g., _suoritin _"(micro)processor" < _suorittaa _"perform", _kuristin _"ballast in a light bulb" < _kuristaa _"choke"), and if Finnish creates a new word for a given invention, I think there's a good chance that this neologism will end with _-in_.

There are a few words with the _-in _suffix that don't refer to instruments, but to non-human objects that perform the action of the verb: the main ones I can think of now are _kasvain _"growth, tumor" < _kasvaa _"grow" and _eläin _"animal" < _elää_ "live".


----------



## ThomasK

I understand, I understand - and I may be wrong. However, I think the suffix formally refers to an agent, whereas of course semantically we call it an instrument. I'd say: compare it with ablative in latin and nominative used with instruments. 

_Clave apero portam_, which in my rusty Latin could mean: I open the door with the key. However, I could also say: _Clavis portam aperit_, whereby the instrument becomes a nominative. Yet in both cases the key is the instrument, whereas in (a) the I seems to be the agent, whereas in (b) the key itself seems to be the agent - whereas we know that if there is no 'actor' who turns the key, there is no way in which any normal key will be able to open the door. Don't you agree ? So for the time being I consider the suffix an object-agent suffix (as apposed to, as a parallel of an personal-agent suffix). Don't you ?


----------



## bibax

Czech:

The suffix *-tel* (masc.), *-telka* (fem.) is used for persons:

učiti (to teach): učitel (teacher), učitelka (teachress)
říditi (to control): ředitel (director, schoolmaster, ...), ředitelka
obývati (to inhabit): obyvatel (inhabitant), obyvatelka
kázati (to preach): kazatel (preacher), kazatelka
nabývati (to acquire): nabyvatel (acquirer), nabyvatelka
osvojiti (to adopt): osvojitel (who adopts a child), osvojitelka
podnikati (to run a business): podnikatel (businessman), podnikatelka

This suffix can also form abstract terms, e.g. in mathematics, but not instruments:

čítati (to count): čitatel (numerator of a fraction)
jmenovati (to name): jmenovatel (denominator of a fraction)
násobiti (to multiply): násobitel (multiplier)

The preffixes *-dlo* and *-tko* (neuter) are used for instruments:

rýti (to engrave, to chisel, ...): rydlo (graver, chisel, chaser)
váhati (to hedge off, to hesitate): vahadlo (balance lever)
počítati (to count): počítadlo (counter, abacus)
měřiti (to measure): měřidlo (measuring instrument, gauge), měřítko (scale)
umývati (to wash): umyvadlo (wash-bowl/basin), umývátko (a small wash-bowl)
píti (to drink): pítko (a small fountain for drinking)
kroužiti (to circle/rotate): kružidlo/kružítko (drawing-compasses)
mýti (to wash): mýdlo (soap)
řediti (to dilute): ředidlo (diluter)

However mýdlo and ředidlo are not instruments, rather chemical agents.

There are other suffixes, some of them do not distinguish persons and instruments.


----------



## Gavril

ThomasK said:


> I understand, I understand - and I may be right. however, i think the suffix formally efers to an agent, whereas of course semantically we call it an instrument. I'd say: compare it with ablative in latin and nominative used with instruments.
> 
> _Clave apero portam_, which in my rusty Latin could mean: I open the door with the key. However, I could also say: _Clavis portam aperit_, whereby the instrument becomes a nominative. Yet in both cases the key is the instrument, whereas in (a) the I seems to be the agent, whereas in (b) the key itself seems to be the agent - whereas we know that if there is no 'actor' who turns the key, there is no way in which any normal key will be able to open the door. Don't you agree ? So for the time being I consider the suffix an object-agent suffix (as apposed to, as a parallel of an personal-agent suffix). Don't you ?



No. If _-in _were used to indicate an object-agent, then it could be added to any inanimate/non-human noun to indicate that this noun was the agent of a sentence, but this is not how the _-in _suffix works. -_in _is a derivational suffix, and a noun ending in _-in _can be the subject or object of a transitive or intransitive sentence, depending on what the context calls for.

Thus, _laskin _"calculator" can be used in the following kinds of sentences:
_

*Laskin* laski luvun._
"The calculator calculated the number." (transitive subject)

_*Laskin* on hyödyllinen._
"A calculator is useful."(intransitive subject)
_
Näin *laskimen* pöydällä._
"I saw a calculator on the table."  (direct object)

_Laskin luvun *laskimella*_.
"I calculated the number with a calculator." (oblique, adessive case)


Let me know if I've misunderstood your point.


----------



## hui

> however, i think the suffix formally efers to an agent, whereas of course semantically we call it an instrument.


I think the word *agent* is misleading. Replace it in my (and Gavril's) posts with the word *person.*   That should clarify the issue.

Finnish_* -in *_suffix does refer to an instrument or device (with some exceptions). As far as I know, it never refers to a person.



> řediti (to dilute): ředidlo (diluter)


You gave several examples of persons and completely different examples of instruments. What would you call a person who dilutes? How about an instrument or device for diluting? Other derivations?

In Finnish:_ laimentaa_ - to dilute =>


_laimentaja_ - person who dilutes
_laimenne_ - diluting substance (diluter?)
_laimennos_ - diluted mixture
_laimennus_ - the act of diluting
_laimennin_ - instrument or device for diluting (I do not know if the instrument existed, but I know what it would be called)


----------



## ThomasK

Let me first of all point out that Bibax's examples and the Finnish examples do point out that there are extra possibilities offered by [suffixes in] certain languages and not available in other languages. 

As for my point. My starting-point is that I prefer not to create an extra category if not necessary. So my hypothesis is that the instrument can be considered some kind of agent (both -or, in many languages - like _sensor_, _factor_, etc.). No need there to 'postulate' an instrument category to account for the -or. or so I think. I am also referring to morphology, not to syntax, but I used syntax to show that instrument words can be used with several cases, and yet point out the same. 



> If _-in _were used to indicate an object-agent, then it could be added to any inanimate/non-human noun to indicate that this noun was the agent of a sentence, but this is not how the _-in _suffix works. -_in _is a derivational suffix, and a noun ending in _-in _can be the subject or object of a transitive or intransitive sentence, depending on what the context calls for.


I might have used the wrong word. By 'agent' (agens) I meant the person doing something marked by a verb( (not a noun). The '-er' in 'worker' marks the agens of 'to work'. So I think one could just distinguish between a personal and a non-personal (thing) agens to account for the Finnish suffix, which I'd consider a variant of the agens suffix. Does that make sense to you?


----------



## Gavril

ThomasK said:


> Let me first of all point out that Bibax's examples and the Finnish examples do point out that there are extra possibilities offered by [suffixes in] certain languages and not available in other languages.
> 
> As for my point. My starting-point is that I prefer not to create an extra category if not necessary. So my hypothesis is that the instrument can be considered some kind of agent (both -or, in many languages - like _sensor_, _factor_, etc.). No need there to 'postulate' an instrument category to account for the -or. or so I think.



With all due respect, this sounds like "chauvinism" in favor of the language(s) that you're familiar with. In other words, you're using as your starting point languages that don't have separate affixes for agentive and instrument, and insisting that these languages are a more clear reflection of reality than languages that do have separate affixes for these two meanings.

By the same logic, you could argue that, since Finnish and related languages have no grammatical gender distinctions, "gender" must not be a real category, and that what we call gender in Indo-European languages is actually a special case of something else (e.g., grammatical case).



> I might have used the wrong word. By 'agent' (agens) I meant the person doing something marked by a verb( (not a noun). The '-er' in 'worker' marks the agens of 'to work'. So I think one could just distinguish between a personal and a non-personal (thing) agens to account for the Finnish suffix, which I'd consider a variant of the agens suffix. Does that make sense to you?



Yes, and I still don't think that your idea holds up. Virtually every Finnish noun  that I can think of ending in _-in_ refers to a device or a tool used by people. Why would this be the case, if the primary meaning contributed by _-in_ was not "instrumentality"?

If your idea was correct, one would expect to see _-in_-derivations from verbs that commonly take inanimate/non-human nouns as their subjects. For example, the verb _pursua_ "gush" could form a noun *_pursuin_ meaning "geyser" or similar, or the verb _välähtää_ "flash" could form a noun *_välähdin_ meaning a flash of lightning, etc. As far as I know, neither of these derived forms exists, and the vast majority of _-in_-derivations are based on verbs that primarily take humans as their subjects.

The original meaning of _-in_ may have been different: the forms _eläin_ and _kasvain_ suggest that the suffix used to designate non-human things that performed the action of a verb. But _-in_ no longer (productively) performs this role in Finnish.


----------



## ThomasK

Wait, wait! ;-) I may be wrong, mistaken - and I very much appreciate your insistence c.q. help. 

Just by the way: I started learning some Finnish a year ago in order to see what is very specific. But if I seem extremely critical, that is only because I want to really see what the specificity is! (Compare it with miracles: the more critical you are, the more you appreciate them ! See my point of view?)

If you are right about the -in referring to instrumentality, then that is indeed a very strong argument. I had been narrow-minded then due to my thinking of sensors, computers, etc. Yet, your last paragraph comes close to what I mean. But perhaps this evolution is more than just a development, but really a shift. 

So bear with me. I seem to be moving towards your point of view... ;-) I just think critical notes can be very useful, though I don't like them that much myself in quite some cases.


----------



## hui

According to _Iso suomen kielioppi_ (Big Finnish Grammar), there are five types of nouns derived from verbs:


act _(teonnimi)_
result of the act _(teon tuloksen nimi)_
performer of the act _(tekijännimi)_
instrument of the act _(välineennimi)_
place and occasion of the act _(tekopaikan ja -tilaisuuden nimi)_
http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk/sisallys.php?p=221


----------



## bibax

> You gave several examples of persons and completely different examples of instruments.


The reason is that the suffix *-tel/-telka* is used prevalently for the professions that hardly use any specific tool or machine, e.g. _učitel_ (teacher), _kazatel_ (preacher), etc. The same is true for such persons like _nabyvatel_ (who acquires a possession, a right, etc.), _osvojitel_ (who adopts a child) or _zaměstnavatel_ (employer). We can create new words like _učidlo_ (a teaching instrument), _kazadlo_ (a preaching instrument), _nabyvadlo_, _osvojidlo_ or _zaměstnavadlo_, but they would be hardly useful.

However there are some examples of complete families (m. f. n.):

činiti (to do/agere): činitel (agent, a person or abstract term), činitelka, činidlo (reagens, in chemistry)
mučiti (to torture): mučitel (torturer), mučitelka (female torturer), mučidlo (instrument of torture)
držeti (to hold) = držitel (holder), držitelka, držadlo/držátko (handle)
etc.

For the professions that use instruments or machines we use mostly the suffix *-č/-čka*, for example: šíti (to sew): šič (sewer), šička (female sewer), šídlo (awl), however šič/šička is an industrial profession not using awls.



> What would you call a person who dilutes? How about an instrument or device for diluting? Other derivations?


There are no other derivatives, except common verbal noun, participles and adjectives which can be formed from every verb (řediti = to dilute, ředění n. = process of diluting, ředící =adj. diluting, ředitelný = adj. dilutable). A person performing the process could be called _ředič_ (sounds awkward), however I think that we should probably use another word for such profession, maybe _míchač_ (mixer, a person) derived from _míchati_ (to mix) or _mísič_ from _mísiti_ (to mix). The instrument for diluting cannot be _ředidlo_ as it means already 'diluting additive'. For diluting I should use _míchadlo/míchátko_ (mixer, spurtle, a tool).

I add that the suffix *-č/-čka* is very often used also for machines or devices, but rarely for simple tools.

počítati (to compute): počítač (computer)
míchati (to mix): míchačka (mortar mixer)
podávati (to pass, to feed material) = podavač (feeder, a mechanism)

I think that in this case the machines replaced the human workers and inherited their names. Originally the distinction was made by the adjective *samočinný* (= automatic, self-operated). I remember from my childhood that the computer was always called *samočinný počítač* (self-operated computer) perhaps in order to emphasize that it is not a person. Despite of the obvious fact that the persons are mostly self-operated as well.


----------



## Sempervirens

Ciao!  In italiano ce ne sono diversi. Ne riporto alcuni:

-ore/-trice,  -ente, -ante, -ino, -aio/-aia, -aro, -iere/-iera, -ista, ...

condizionat_ore/_lava_trice_, conduc_ente_, insegn_ante_, accend_ino_, fior_aio_, fiammifer_aia_, campan_aro_, camer_iere_, camer_iera_, aut_ista_, ...

S.V


----------



## Encolpius

*Hungarian *

here is a nice article in Hungarian 

briefly: 

agent > -ó/-ő (tanító - teacher, szerelő - repair mechanic, igazgató -director, nyomozó - detective...)

instrument > -ó/-ő is possible as well, the article misses that fact (vasaló - iron, véső chisel ...)

and many other possibilites


----------



## Gavril

Since I cannot read Hungarian, what are the main instrument suffix(es) in Hungarian according to that article?


----------



## Encolpius

Hungarian 

I think unlike other languages you cannot say there is a main instrument suffix in Hungarian. Even -ó/-ő is not as often as the English -er or French -eur, etc...And I think we prefer compound nouns (like Germans) in derivation. 
The article mentions these instrument suffixes: *-tyú/-tyű *(-attyú/-ettyű): dugattyú, billentyű; *-óka/-őke*: szívóka, ülőke; *-ány/-ény*: nyitány; *-ál/-él; -al/-el*: fonál, födél, huzal; *-ály/-ély:* akadály, szegély. --- you see there quite a few of them


----------



## ThomasK

I tried Google to find out more about the translation of the words you mentioned,  and I think this is indeed something special, different from what is conveyed by the -er (but I only found some translations):


> pistons, valves, -(....) [.......?], the seat; yarn, [_Fodel _?], wire; access, edge


I'd be interested to hear about the precise translations of the examples given above...


----------



## ger4

Encolpius said:


> [...] The article mentions these instrument suffixes: *-tyú/-tyű *(-attyú/-ettyű): dugattyú, billentyű; *-óka/-őke*: szívóka, ülőke; *-ány/-ény*: nyitány; *-ál/-él; -al/-el*: fonál, födél, huzal; *-ály/-ély:* akadály, szegély. --- you see there quite a few of them


Just out of curiosity I tried to find some translations here:
- dugattyú: piston, ram, sucker
- billentyű: key
- szívóka: sucker
- ülőke: dumpy, seat
- nyitány: overture
- fonál: strand, string, thread [is this a fonál?...], twist, wool, yarn
- födél: "nincs találat"... 
- huzal: wire
- akadály: balk, bar, barrier, block, check, clog, cross, curb, difficulty, drag, handicap, hindrance, hitch, ... ...
- szegély: band, bands, bed, border, braid, edge, fringe, ham, lap, .........

... somehow, I guess this doesn't really help... Do we get to the 'stems' or 'basic meanings' of those nouns simply by deleting the suffixes? (As far as I know, Hungarian doesn't have anything like consonant gradation - but I might be wrong)


----------



## Encolpius

the words are very old, specific and difficult for me to translate it into English....Holger's translations are right... I don't know what you guys are looking for...but I can add the verbs if it helps
dug - dugattyú, szív - szívóka, ül - ülőke, nyit - nyitány, fon - fonál, fed/föd - fedél, födél, húz - huzal, akad - akadály, szeg - szegély
but briefly it works like: szív (to suck) szívóka (straw - you use it to suck Coke from the glass)...etc...


----------



## ThomasK

What we are/ I am looking for, is - as for me - to find clarification about the suffix. But I think we have one parallel in Dutch: _zetel _(armchair) is something that can be used to _zitten _(sit), a 'sitting instrument', you could say. So* the -el suffix in Dutch *(maybe also in German [Sessel, ...]) refers to an instrument indeed, and not to an agent _- I am beginning to understand (after four years, forgive me)_. I suppose the same holds true of _lepel _(spoon), _beitel _(chisel, meant for carving), _..._

Of course (?), no one is aware of that except for some "funny guys" interested in etymology.


----------



## ger4

ThomasK said:


> [...] So* the -el suffix in Dutch *(maybe also in German [Sessel, ...]) refers to an instrument indeed, and not to an agent _- I am beginning to understand (after four years, forgive me)_. I suppose the same holds true of _lepel _(spoon), _beitel _(chisel, meant for carving), _..._[_..._]


Also, perhaps, _deksel _(?)(related to _dekken_?) - _Deckel_ in German < _(be)decken_ - 'to cover'. I can't think of any other German examples for the -el suffix now, except _Griffel_ ('slate pencil'), derived from _greifen_ ('to grip', 'to grab')... and _Schlüssel _('key'), of course, (_schließen_ - 'to close', 'to lock'). According to dwds, there is an old Germanic suffix: _-ila-_ . It would be interesting to find out if Czech _-dlo_ is somehow related with that suffix...


> Originally Posted by *bibax* >>
> rýti (to engrave, to chisel, ...): rydlo (graver, chisel, chaser)
> váhati (to hedge off, to hesitate): vahadlo (balance lever)
> počítati (to count): počítadlo (counter, abacus)
> měřiti (to measure): měřidlo (measuring instrument, gauge)
> umývati (to wash): umyvadlo (wash-bowl/basin)
> kroužiti (to circle/rotate): kružidlo/kružítko (drawing-compasses)
> řediti (to dilute): ředidlo (diluter)


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks for the information, Holger. I guess you will be right!


----------



## Ghabi

In Arabic, an agent usually either has the "active participate" pattern faa3il (f=first consonant; 3=second consonant; l=third consonant; doubled vowel=long) or the "intensive" pattern fa33aal. Which of them to use is idiomatic (sometimes both are used).

On the other hand, an instrument takes the specific pattern mif3al or mif3aal.


----------



## bibax

Holger2014 said:


> ... According to dwds, there is an old Germanic suffix: _-ila-_ . It would be interesting to find out if Czech _-dlo_ is somehow related with that suffix...


There is an older thread "Tools for flying, for working: suffix or separate word?"


----------



## Gavril

Maybe they are distantly related, but I'm pretty sure that -_dlo_- comes from the IE suffix *-_dhlo_-/-_tlo_- which could be used for tools and instruments, as in

Latin_ stabulum_ "stall, habitation" < *_sta_- "stand" + *-_dhlom_,
Greek _téretron_ "gimlet" < _tere-_ "to bore through, pierce" + *-_tlom_,
Welsh _sawdl _"heel (of the foot)" < *_sta_- "stand" +  *-_tlom_


----------



## ThomasK

I guess that will be the one! It would be too much of a coincidence, I guess...


Ghabi said:


> In Arabic, an agent usually either has the "active participate" pattern faa3il (f=first consonant; 3=second consonant; l=third consonant; doubled vowel=long) or the "intensive" pattern fa33aal. Which of them to use is idiomatic (sometimes both are used).
> 
> On the other hand, an instrument takes the specific pattern mif3al or mif3aal.


Could you give examples? And is it still (a) recognizable to the general Arabic speaking audience and (b) productive (are new words still being made ?).


----------

