TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
>
> Further to my previous post, I had a cursory look to see what Merriam
> Webster on line has to say on the subject. Unbelievably (considering
> that "fraudster" has no definition in the OED)
Look at OED's "-ster" entry, alphabetically listed as an 's' word. This
has been an English suffix since w-a-y back in Teutonic/Old English, and
survived 'til today as a way to denote one who does something as an
occupation, as opposed to one who occasionally does it (which would have
been the -er suffix). These were feminine and masculine suffixes
respectively, confusing the issue of occupation versus occasional , but
anyway those distinctions seem to have faded out in modern English usage.
, Webster has:
>
> Fraudster
> chiefly British : a person who engages in fraud : cheat
Dictionaries can be wrong, but maybe M-W is saying that American English
never referred to occupations in earnest with -ster, while Britain's
English has used or recognized it for fifteen centuries.
Two 1980s dictionaries I have at hand differ about -ster, while neither
makes any statements about it as being chiefly British. Random House
Second Unabridged says -ster is used in forming nouns, is often
derogratory, referring especially to occupation, habit, or association.
American Heritage Third says much the same, but does not say that it is
ever derogatory. AH also adds a use for one who is (youngster). I'm glad
they did that, because I think it is precise and accurate, for American
English anyway.
I share Gene's sense that American usage in neologisms is more slang
(hipster, trickster, ...). I think it seems a little bit mocking of
affectation, as if suggesting that many people see themselves that way
but few truly succeed at it.
Thus, a fraudster is being mocked as a would-be fraud, someone who will
attempt to be a fraud, but will most likely be caught by powerful new
fraud-detection technology. Is it slang, marketing jargon, American
English, or what? As a contractor, I would probably repeat it and use it
in documentation if its use was already established in my workplace. It
won't confuse anyone, and will ease exchanges between a customer and the
customer support team.
My two bitmaps,
The Nedster
doc -at- edwordsmith -dot- com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 2009 is your all-in-one authoring and publishing
solution. Author in Doc-To-Help's XML-based editor, Microsoft Word or
HTML and publish to the Web, Help systems or printed manuals. http://www.doctohelp.com
Help & Manual 5: The complete help authoring tool for individual
authors and teams. Professional power, intuitive interface. Write
once, publish to 8 formats. Multi-user authoring and version control! http://www.helpandmanual.com/
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
