A preposterous proposition

There are, as you, dear reader, well know, four types of sieve. This conclusion is founded upon the well-established theory of sieves, which states that a sieve is an object with two properties each of which may be in one of two states. The two states are of permission and denial. The properties relate to the passage of fluids (liquids and gases) and solids. Thus a sieve is an object which will either permit or deny the passage of liquids or solids. Where both states are set to denial (Permissio Aut Nunquam), we have a pan sieve, which as a result of the dropping of the noun and retention of the adjective as an adjectival noun – a common occurrence in the English language – is commonly known as a pan. We must be careful however in any discussion of the theory of sieves to use the correct terminology. Where both states are set to permit (Permissio In Propter aEternum) we have a pipe sieve, which becomes known to us, for the same reasons, as a pipe or where the pipe has zero thickness a ring or hoop. The second order of sieve is where the fluid property is set to permit and the solid to deny. This is the, somewhat perhaps confusingly but it has become the standard convention, the solid sieve (Solidum Obstructus; Licet fluidum Ius Detur). In everyday use in the kitchen or garden we would simply refer to it as a sieve. The fourth order of sieve, which is a fluid* sieve has a state of deny to fluids and permit to solids. It is under standard convention known as the exotic sieve. It is thought to have significant technological advantages over much that is presently used in engineering, for the storage of fluids and the building of engines which rely upon clean fluid fuels. It would be possible to clean fluids in a static environment, the fuel tank of your car for example, rather than using a filter in the pathways to the combustion chamber. Exhaust gases similarly and waste liquids could be cleaned and solids collected safely. The possibilities for use in a waste treatment plant are considered to be inestimable.

As yet the exotic sieve has not been observed in the real world, but early work in the late Soviet Union under Lysenko, who was primarily an agricultural scientist but saw the potential benefits of this sieve made some progress, but sadly the work ceased to be funded in 1989. It is thought that the work may be continuing in Xin-Jiang or perhaps Wuhan, but no official confirmation of this has been possible to obtain.

So what has this to do with standees, well we shall now see. Coco was astonished to see the use of the word so Coco thought: Coco should consider other words which use this construction. You may care to correct the following:

• It is an anchorage. The anchors anchor the anchee, which then becomes the anchored. Hmm, I think that is wrong. It is the boat, carrying the anchor, which is anchored.
• It is an appointment. The appointors appoint the appointee who then becomes the appointed.
• It is a beavering. The beavers beave the beavees which then become the beaved.
• It is a colouring. The colours colour the colees which then become the coloured. It is better in US English.
• It is a donation. The donors done [to] the donees, who then become the done[d]. Well, a three year old might say I have doed it, but I have doned it, perhaps not.
• It is an execution. The executors and executrices execute the executees, who then become the executed.
• It is an escape. The escapers escape the escapees, who then become the escaped. I seem to remember reading somewhere that it was the escapees who escaped, but the -ees and -ors cannot be the same surely?
• It is a firing. The firer fires the firee, who then becomes the fired. Well, you probably would not say it quite like that, but it makes sense at least.
• It is a footballing. The footballers football the footballee, which then becomes the footballed.
• It is a going. The goers go to the goee, which become the gone.
• It is a howing. The howers how the howee, which becomes the howed.
• It is an idling. The idlers idle the idlee, which becomes the idled.
• It is a jambing. The jamborors jambor the jamboree, which becomes the jamboreed.
• It is a joke. The jokers joke the jokee, who then becomes the joked.
• It is a killing. The killers kill the killee, who then becomes the killed.
• It is a laughing. The laughers laugh [at] the laughee, who then becomes the laughed.
• It is a mortgage. The mortgagor mortgages the mortgagee, which then becomes the mortgaged.
• It is a mourning. The mourners mourn the mournee, who then becomes the mourned.
• It is a numbering. The numbers number the numberee which then becomes the numbered. After this my days probably are too.
• It is a ornamentation. The ornamentor ornaments the ornamentee, who/which then becomes the ornamented. That should rather probably be: The ornamentrix ornaments the ornamentee, who then becomes the ornamented.
• It is a payment. The payers pay the payee, who then becomes the paid.
• It is a quelling. The quellors quell the quellee, which then becomes the quelled.
• It is a ramble (like this). The ramblers ramble the ramblee which then becomes the rambled.
• It is a registration. The registrars register the [interest of the] registrant which then becomes the registered.
• It is a sizeuppance. The sizeuppers size the sizeuppees up, who then become the sizedup.
• It is a spectacle. The spectators spectate the spectatees, who then become the spectated.
• It is a standing. The standers stand (on/in front of/behind/below/above/next to etc?) the standees, who then become the standed.
• It is a tidying up. The tidy-uppers tidy up the tidy-uppee, which then becomes the tidied-up.
• It is a usurpation. The usurpers usurped the usurpee, who became the usurped.
• It is a vivisection. The vivisectors vivisected the vivisectee which became the vivisected.
• It is a waiting. The waiters and waitresses wait [on/for] the waitees, who then become the weighted.
• It is a wedding. The wedders wed the weddees, who then become the wedded.
• It is a weighing. The weigher weigh the weighees who then become the weighed.
• It is a xysteration. The xysterators xysterate the xysteree, which becomes the xysterated.
• It is a yanking. The yankers yank the Yankee, which becomes the yanked.
• It is a zincing. The zincers zinc the zincee, which then becomes the zinced. Coco knows Coco should have said galvanising, but z-verbs are fewer and further between then x-verbs. Zoom does not cut the mustard.

Has it become obvious to you that the -ee-or endings, like the famous donkey, are rather morose. They speak of an empty head which has seen the -ee-or elsewhere and thought ‘that can be used in place of ‘standing’’. On a bus, there is likely to be a notice indicating that it is licensed to carry 30 seated and 20 standing. What has clearly been forgotten is that this is a common English way of saying 30 seated passengers and 20 standing passengers. Standing is an adjective without its noun, just as pan in the initial discussion is an adjective without its noun. Coco suspects that perhaps they were told that standing is an adjective and thought ‘O, we cannot use that then’. Did they forget, there is already a noun implied in the notice which does not need to be said, but sometimes is, or at least used to be, and therefore standing is the correct word to use. Better than standee then would have been to use orthostatis, at least the correct form of that word is definitively defined, if Coco may use a tautologous repetition of a conceptual idea.

By the way, the second purpose of the discussion of the sieve was also to show that just because a theory suggests the existence of a particular state of matter, the real world does not have to provide it. There may be an apparently empty slot (*as above for the Fluidum obstructus; licet solidum ius detur seive) in our design for the world, but it is perhaps just as likely that the design is wrong as that the thing for the slot exists.

For in saying: where is the promise of his coming, they wilfully forget that God made the worlds of old out of water and destroyed them with water (ie the cataclysm). Just so he shall destroy the present world (at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ) with fire (2 Peter 3 and elsewhere). Do you have a conception of this world which excludes that? Does your paradigm omit judgement and retribution? We must not forget that God has shown his wrath, and mercy towards sinners, in the death of Jesus Christ who for sinners received the just judgement and retribution that our sins deserved in order that God may justly show mercy and provide forgiveness to sinners.