Carillonneur vs. carillonist

[Richard Offen]

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, Carl S Zimmerman <csz_stl at ...> 
wrote:
>
> At 06:32 +0000 06/09/22, Richard Offen wrote (subject "[Bell 
> Historians] Re: Call for papers on ... bell-casting?"):
> >--- In 
> ><mailto:bellhistorians%
40yahoogroups.com>bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, 
> >Carl S Zimmerman <csz_stl@>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>  A fellow carillonist has drawn my attention to a forthcoming 
series
> >>  of conferences, to be held annually in Oxford from 2007 to 2010.
> >
> >Why have you all suddenly become 'carillonists'? What was wrong
> >with 'carillonneurs'?
> >
> >R
> _____
> 
> "All" is too much of a generalization.  The GCNA remains The Guild 
of 
> Carillonneurs in North America, and I remain a Carillonneur Member 
of 
> the GCNA.  However, there are a number of carillon aficionados 
> (myself included) who regard the word "carillonneur" as an accident 
> of history, and the word "carillonist" as more appropriate for the 
> English language.  For more details, see
> http://www.gcna.org/data/Glossary.html
> 
> Carl


As Ed has said, just about every word in the English language is an 
accident of history and it seems to me that our friends across the 
Pond are causing a good number of the accidents these days!

I fully realise that English, like most other languages, is evolving 
all the time (I can nearly cope with split infinitives nowadays!), 
but why do we have to make up new words when perfectly good ones 
already exist?   Another example is 'envision' ...what was wrong with 
envisage?

Taking the 'ist' ending to its logical musical conclusion, are we in 
future to refer to Ringo Starr as the former drummist with the 
Beatles?

Yours,

Mr Grumpy!