Welcome Guest

recurring vs reoccurring Options

dpbrick Posted: Friday, March 9, 2012 5:14:52 PM

Rank: Newbie



Joined: 3/9/2012

Posts: 4

Neurons: 12

Location: Colorado

It displays such an ignorance of proper English. It's even entered into dictionaries, for crying out loud -- even this one.



Hardly anyone says "reoccurrent". Rather, they say "recurrent". Thus, the acknowledged root of the word is "recur" -- not "reoccur". Strangely, though, Google's spell checker flags "reoccurrent" but not any of the other incorrect forms of "reoccur".



If we were going about this logically, then if we wanted to invent a word meaning "occurring again" we would, indeed, slap the "re" prefix on the front of it. But that would violate our rules regarding causing confusion with the pronunciation. Therefore, we'd have to include the hyphen following the prefix to separate the two colliding vowels. Thus, we'd have "re-occurring".



But why would we do that when we already have an English word that meets our requirements perfectly: "recurring"? Adding "reoccurring" to the lexicon only adds to confusion.



Besides, "recur" and all its forms possess the somewhat subtle advantage, too, of being the greener approach. Indeed, one less letter means less ink, and perhaps ultimately, less paper, as well. Please, people, stop using "reoccurring" instead of "recurring".It displays such an ignorance of proper English. It's even entered into dictionaries, for crying out loud -- even this one.Hardly anyone says "reoccurrent". Rather, they say "recurrent". Thus, the acknowledged root of the word is "recur" -- not "reoccur". Strangely, though, Google's spell checker flags "reoccurrent" but not any of the other incorrect forms of "reoccur".If we were going about this logically, then if we wanted to invent a word meaning "occurring again" we would, indeed, slap the "re" prefix on the front of it. But that would violate our rules regarding causing confusion with the pronunciation. Therefore, we'd have to include the hyphen following the prefix to separate the two colliding vowels. Thus, we'd have "re-occurring".But why would we do that when we already have an English word that meets our requirements perfectly: "recurring"? Adding "reoccurring" to the lexicon only adds to confusion.Besides, "recur" and all its forms possess the somewhat subtle advantage, too, of being the greener approach. Indeed, one less letter means less ink, and perhaps ultimately, less paper, as well.

Jyrkkä Jätkä Posted: Friday, March 9, 2012 5:21:53 PM



Rank: Advanced Member



Joined: 9/21/2009

Posts: 43,131

Neurons: 591,142

Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland

I didn't know of the word reoccurring before this thread and couldn't think any use for it. The funniest thing is that my Firefox British English spell checker does not nag me about the word.

(even more funny: it nags me about the word Firefox ;-)



Second thought,

why not shorten repeatedly occurring as reoccurring?



Third thought,

the Finnish equivalent for reoccurring would be toistuvasti esiintyvä,

which is exaggeration or puff up for the word toistuva.



Another expression to come in fashion by the media persons?



Drag0nspeaker Posted: Friday, March 9, 2012 6:24:24 PM



Rank: Advanced Member



Joined: 9/12/2011

Posts: 34,349

Neurons: 226,702

Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom

I have this feeling...



It may just be my simple mind trying to justify the existence of two almost identical words, but maybe not.



I read "occur" to mean 'happens once'.



I read " re occur" to mean 'happens once, then happens once again.'



I read "recur" to mean 'happens repeatedly, usually at regular intervals'

MTC Posted: Friday, March 9, 2012 7:43:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member



Joined: 1/18/2011

Posts: 2,780

Neurons: 8,606

Both recur and reoccur are in the dictionary:





reoccur [ˌriːəˈkɜː]

vb -curs, -curring, -curred (intr)

to happen, take place, or come about again

reoccurrence n

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003



recur [rɪˈkɜː]

vb -curs, -curring, -curred (intr)

1. to happen again, esp at regular intervals

2. (of a thought, idea, etc.) to come back to the mind

3. (of a problem, etc.) to come up again

4. (Mathematics) Maths (of a digit or group of digits) to be repeated an infinite number of times at the end of a decimal fraction

[from Latin recurrere, from re- + currere to run]

recurring adj

recurringly adv

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003



There is a nice, but real distinction between the words: Reoccur means to happen one more time; recur means repeat more than once, especially at regular intervals.

dpbrick Posted: Friday, March 9, 2012 7:44:34 PM

Rank: Newbie



Joined: 3/9/2012

Posts: 4

Neurons: 12

Location: Colorado

Drag0nspeaker wrote: I have this feeling...



It may just be my simple mind trying to justify the existence of two almost identical words, but maybe not.



I read "occur" to mean 'happens once'.



I read " re occur" to mean 'happens once, then happens once again.'



I read "recur" to mean 'happens repeatedly, usually at regular intervals'



First of all, I doubt you have such a simple mind. Your reasoning has a certain appeal to it. There's almost a sense of "Yeah, there should be a reason for having two such similar words in our vernacular." Ahhh. If there were even that tiny slice of distinction between the two... However, you will note in the dictionaries containing both "words" there is not one iota of difference between their definitions. In fact, several list one of the definitions of "reoccur" as "recur". The more authoritative dictionaries do, at least, still suggest "recur" is preferable to "reoccur". First of all, I doubt you have such a simple mind. Your reasoning has a certain appeal to it. There's almost a sense of "Yeah, there should be a reason for having two such similar words in our vernacular." Ahhh. If there were even that tiny slice of distinction between the two... However, you will note in the dictionaries containing both "words" there is not one iota of difference between their definitions. In fact, several list one of the definitions of "reoccur" as "recur". The more authoritative dictionaries do, at least, still suggest "recur" is preferable to "reoccur".

Romany Posted: Saturday, March 10, 2012 9:46:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member



Joined: 6/14/2009

Posts: 17,542

Neurons: 56,685

Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

I do not think the words ARE interchangeable in all circumstances, actually. I certainly wouldn't use them that way.



The thing I love about the English language is that the multiplicity of synonyms means that one can inject exactly the right nuance of meaning - i.e. on the surface two sentences may sound synonymous but the careful choice of words by any wordsmith gets that slight difference across. To me, that is the mark of all the great classicists of English Literature.



In the the dictionary definition MTC gave above the primary meaning of recur was 'to happen again especially at regular intervals.' Thus, if one lives in a hurricane belt, one makes provisions for that, as one knows hurricanes will recur.



However, if one DOESN"T live in a hurricane belt and a hurricane, by freak chance, happens, one might not build a cellar (or whatever precautions one takes - am unaquainted with ins and outs) because one would hope like mad that the chances of a reoccurence were too slight to worry about. I rather think that was what Dragon was getting at it his post too?



As I wrote once before - we attach the label 'synonyms' to words because the meaning are similar. If the meanings were identical one would call them 'identicalyms'.



To me that's the joy of working with the English language.





Drag0nspeaker Posted: Sunday, March 11, 2012 12:17:52 AM



Rank: Advanced Member



Joined: 9/12/2011

Posts: 34,349

Neurons: 226,702

Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom





what I said was:



What a great word - "Identicalyms"



One of the indications of sanity is the ability to recognise the differences between similar things.

Insanity is thinking in identicalisms - "All women are stupid", "All Moslems/Catholics/Atheists/Protestants are evil", "All Democrats/Socialists/Republicans/Conservatives are..." Humph - I already answered this an hour ago and the computer ATE it!what I said was:What a great word - "Identicalyms"One of the indications of sanity is the ability to recognise the differences between similar things.Insanity is thinking in identicalisms - "All women are stupid", "All Moslems/Catholics/Atheists/Protestants are evil", "All Democrats/Socialists/Republicans/Conservatives are..."

Ray41 Posted: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:06:28 AM



Rank: Advanced Member



Joined: 9/9/2010

Posts: 1,937

Neurons: 45,980

Location: Orange, New South Wales, Australia





Humph - I already answered this an hour ago and the computer ATE it! Drag0nspeaker wrote:Humph - I already answered this an hour ago and the computer ATE it!





Maybe you are not feeding your PC enough and it needed an extra Byte or two.



Maybe you are not feeding your PC enough and it needed an extra Byte or two.

Romany Posted: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:11:18 AM

Rank: Advanced Member



Joined: 6/14/2009

Posts: 17,542

Neurons: 56,685

Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Dragon -



You like "identicalyms" - it's yours for a peanut and a pennywhistle.



Ray - all I can say is... GROAN!!!

MTC Posted: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:14:35 AM

Rank: Advanced Member



Joined: 1/18/2011

Posts: 2,780

Neurons: 8,606

Romany wrote:



"As I wrote once before - we attach the label 'synonyms' to words because the meaning are similar. If the meanings were identical one would call them 'identicalyms'.



To me that's the joy of working with the English language."



I completely agree. And if "identicalyms" were all English could offer, the language would be greatly impoverished. I like to think of words as watercolors. No two are exactly alike. Even close synonyms have slightly different "coloration."

Shivanand Posted: Monday, March 12, 2012 12:22:00 AM

Rank: Advanced Member



Joined: 9/2/2011

Posts: 7,902

Neurons: 229,316

Location: Bangalore, Karnataka, India

Agree with Romany,MTC and dragOn on their observations. @dpbrick, I assure you that our experts give you more than what the dictionaries can offer. Your comments on dragOn's thought process is unnecessary and smacks of arrogance not expected of forum members. Ultimately it is the love for the language which has brought us together. Let us benefit from each other's knowledge and wisdom.



Cheers!

dpbrick Posted: Monday, March 12, 2012 5:35:02 PM

Rank: Newbie



Joined: 3/9/2012

Posts: 4

Neurons: 12

Location: Colorado

shivanand wrote: Agree with Romany,MTC and dragOn on their observations. @dpbrick, I assure you that our experts give you more than what the dictionaries can offer. Your comments on dragOn's thought process is unnecessary and smacks of arrogance not expected of forum members. Ultimately it is the love for the language which has brought us together. Let us benefit from each other's knowledge and wisdom.



Cheers!



It's always difficult to read between the lines, as to what a writer's true intentions are, in these very short little snippets of written words. For that reason, I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.



I assure you my comments as to DragOnSpeaker's thought process were meant as a compliment only. It certainly was not meant to be condescending. I have nothing to be arrogant about -- I'm not even categorized in this forum as being "Advanced". But then, categorizations, and even titles, mean little to me, especially when they're given for trivial reasons such as how many times a person has posted in a forum. [Now don't get your knickers twisted into a knot over that remark -- if you could see the twinkle in my eye, you'd know I'm only poking a bit of fun.]



Now to be absolutely frank with you, shivanand, I found your post to be far more provocative and arrogant than mine was. The equating of "Advanced Member" with "expert" particularly stuck in my craw. If DragOnSpeaker felt insulted by my post, I wish he/she had let me know that. If that is the case, I sincerely apologize to you, DragOnSpeaker. But I also will let you, shivanand, know I was insulted by your condescending post. It's always difficult to read between the lines, as to what a writer's true intentions are, in these very short little snippets of written words. For that reason, I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.I assure you my comments as to DragOnSpeaker's thought process were meant as a compliment only. It certainly was not meant to be condescending. I have nothing to be arrogant about -- I'm not even categorized in this forum as being "Advanced". But then, categorizations, and even titles, mean little to me, especially when they're given for trivial reasons such as how many times a person has posted in a forum. [Now don't get your knickers twisted into a knot over that remark -- if you could see the twinkle in my eye, you'd know I'm only poking a bit of fun.]Now to be absolutely frank with you, shivanand, I found your post to be far more provocative and arrogant than mine was. The equating of "Advanced Member" with "expert" particularly stuck in my craw. If DragOnSpeaker felt insulted by my post, I wish he/she had let me know that. If that is the case, I sincerely apologize to you, DragOnSpeaker. But I also will let you, shivanand, know I was insulted by your condescending post.

Drag0nspeaker Posted: Monday, March 12, 2012 6:30:41 PM



Rank: Advanced Member



Joined: 9/12/2011

Posts: 34,349

Neurons: 226,702

Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom

that happen? Two days ago, I was only a 'mere' member!



I did not take your statement as anything but a light-hearted comment - as my comment about 'my simple mind' was originally.



I have never been able to figure out the criteria for the 'statuses' (?stati?) on this forum - I think is is more to do with the time period from your first post, rather than number of posts.

It is definitely not 'expertness' as I know one 'Advanced Member' (no longer on the forum) who posted very little except confusing, incorrect, data or questions like "Why is 'thing' a noun?".



As you can see, I tend to make heavy use of 'smileys' when I am ironic or 'dryly humourous', just to be certain!



I'm sure any misunderstanding will nor re-occur (or should that be 'recur'). WOW! When didhappen? Two days ago, I was only a 'mere' member!I did not take your statement as anything but a light-hearted comment - as my comment about 'my simple mind' was originally.I have never been able to figure out the criteria for the 'statuses' (?stati?) on this forum - I think is is more to do with theperiod from your first post, rather than number of posts.It is definitely not 'expertness' as I know one 'Advanced Member' (no longer on the forum) who posted very little except confusing, incorrect, data or questions like "Why is 'thing' a noun?".As you can see, I tend to make heavy use of 'smileys' when I am ironic or 'dryly humourous', just to be certain!I'm sure any misunderstanding will nor re-occur (or should that be 'recur').

dpbrick Posted: Monday, March 12, 2012 8:04:00 PM

Rank: Newbie



Joined: 3/9/2012

Posts: 4

Neurons: 12

Location: Colorado

-- did I say that out loud?]. While I believe "reoccur" began as a misspelling of "recur" or just out of ignorance there was such a word as "recur", it has become acceptable English by way of common usage. It still looks awkward to me (because I was taught in grammar school that "reoccur" is a common grammatical error), but I can live with it.



As for the nuance of differential meaning between the two words, I believe that nuance was added in certain dictionaries (and some people's minds), long after "reoccur" began being used in "error" as an "identicalym" of "recur".



What's ironic is that "reoccur" actually follows our rules for forming words with the re- prefix to indicate a repetitious action while "recur" is actually formed from a different Latin root than is "occur". Yeah, it's weird how language evolves, huh? Oh, never mind about that. The sole purpose for my rant was merely to vent off a bit of steam. {-- did I say that out loud?]. While I believe "reoccur" began as a misspelling of "recur" or just out of ignorance there was such a word as "recur", it has become acceptable English by way of common usage. It still looks awkward to me (because I was taught in grammar school that "reoccur" is a common grammatical error), but I can live with it.As for the nuance of differential meaning between the two words, I believe that nuance was added in certain dictionaries (and some people's minds), long after "reoccur" began being used in "error" as an "identicalym" of "recur".What's ironic is that "reoccur" actually follows our rules for forming words with the re- prefix to indicate a repetitious action while "recur" is actually formed from a different Latin root than is "occur".Yeah, it's weird how language evolves, huh?

MTC Posted: Monday, March 12, 2012 8:06:23 PM

Rank: Advanced Member



Joined: 1/18/2011

Posts: 2,780

Neurons: 8,606

With a fulsome trumpet fanfare, a flourish of royal purple, and to the resonant and welcoming applause of his or her Peers, thus doth DragOnspeaker enter the Hall of Advanced Members, the noble and envied few, who purely by virtue of their prolific posts, without regard to content or value, daily grace The Forum with their wit, wisdom, and occasionally misunderstood musings. United in recognition of your brilliant achievement, in honor of your well-deserved Status, we The Anointed raise our golden goblets in your name. All hail the Advanced Member! All hail! (P.S. Try not to let this go to your head.)



TFD Form Letter 1-9G (grandiose option)