And the list goes on...
O.k., people, it's not "extendable", it's "extensible".
I think people just think they take the infinitive form, and add "-able".
Wrong!
And I just read in another journal (which shall remain anonymous) the word "undefendable".
Cripes. "Defensible", "indefensible".
Make a note of it.
Re:Extendable
jdporter on 2002-07-16T06:05:19
But those cases aren't analogous.
"extendable" vs. "extensible" are (morphs of) endings on the same root; "drinkable" vs. "potable" are different roots. Which suffixes they get are independently determined. With "extend", as with any other single root, there is only one right way to add the -[ia]ble ending. Extendable is just as wrong as extendible.
</pedantry>Re:Extendable
vsergu on 2002-07-16T12:36:08
I disagree. "Extendable" isn't formed from a root in the way "extensible" is. It's formed by adding the English suffix "-able" to the English word "extend", just as "-able" can be added to other verbs. The suffix "-able" is productive, unlike "-ible", much as the prefix "un-" is productive while "in-" isn't.
Essentially, "-ible" words are formed in Latin (although sometimes the formation is a little late), and then imported into English whole. Some "-able" words are like that, too, but most are formed in English from an English verb and the English suffix "-able".
"Extendable" is a perfectly normal English formation, even if it's an unnecessary one.Re:Extendable
jdporter on 2002-07-16T17:01:20
It's formed by adding the English suffix "-able" to the English word "extend",
Yes, obviously that's how people do it. That doesn't make it correct.
"Extendable" is a perfectly normal English formation
And again, being "normal" (i.e. following the norm) doesn't qualify something as correct in English, for the simple fact that English is so complex and irregular. Even so, you explained clearly enough why "extensible" is right.
That leaves us with only a recourse to precedent. What's the earliest attestation of "extendable"? If Shakespeare used it, then I'll humbly concede.
Re:Extendable
vsergu on 2002-07-17T01:42:55
The OED has an entry for "extendible" (it considers "extendable" an obsolete form of "extendible"). The definition does mention "extensible" as a synonym, but it's considered a separate word. The earliest citations are 1477 for "extendible", 1654 for "extendable" (1622 in a specific legal sense), and 1611 for "extensible".
We don't disagree that "extensible" is right. What I'm missing in your argument is why that means that "extendable" is wrong. They're two different, though similar words, one derived from Latin "extensibilis" and one created in English from "extend" and "-able" (which of course both originated in Latin).
Anyway, I realize that pet peeves often aren't susceptible to rational explanation, and there's little point in saying more. I'll leave it at that.
Re:I've been thinking of writing an ...
jdporter on 2002-07-16T06:07:41
extention
Yes, but that is a rare bird, at least in my experience.
In fact, it is on the verge of extincsion.
Re:I've been thinking of writing an ...
koschei on 2002-07-16T06:26:34
Lucky devil. I see "extention" everywhere. "Blah is a Perl extention to do blagging."
"This is an extention to XML to allow spelling checking."
It sticks out once you notice it, like "albeit".
Re:I've been thinking of writing an ...
jdporter on 2002-07-16T16:55:01
Interesting. Well, I had to go and double-check, and yes, h2xs does it right.
Re:I've been thinking of writing an ...
jdavidb on 2002-07-16T14:47:29
I see it everywhere. And I'm mad, and I'm not going to take it anymore!!!!!
Re:I've been thinking of writing an ...
jdporter on 2002-07-16T17:07:48
s<<after >>< as hell>
So is extendable, but extensible does have a meaning reserved for Computer Science and programming languages which extendable lacks. I don't know the context of your criticism of the use of extendable. It may have been inappropriate in the case to which you refer.
Re:Defending the undefendable
jdporter on 2002-07-16T06:12:37
Shit dictionaries, that's what.
Gotta remember, most all dictionaries any more are usage-recording; that is, they are descriptive rather than prescriptive. They don't even pretend to tell you what's right, their only aim any more is to help you know the meaning of something you just heard or read. Even the worst of grammar ["for her and I"] can find its way into the dictionary. Does that make it right? I think not.
Re:Defending the undefendable
jordan on 2002-07-16T14:54:18
Well, I guess you've explained your position.
Look, I agree that codifying usage can lead to problems of imprecision and ambiguity. I hate the way that the word specious is so commonly misused that it will probably soon lose its meaning.
However, in this case, I see no reason to deprecate these words. Nobody is confused about the meaning when they are used and they follow regular rules of construction.
Remember, TIMTOWTDI is a principle from natural language. So, some people say defensible, some say defendable. Where's the harm? When you can show harm, as your example of the misuse of proper pronoun declension or when a word is having its meaning diluted, then perhaps we have reason to complain. But removing words from the language because you don't like their construction rules? Rules that are regular and easily understood? I think not.
Are we to change our usage for no reason other than jdporter doesn't like it?
Re:Defending the undefendable
jdporter on 2002-07-16T17:22:33
Just between you and I, it don't matter much, in-the-long-run, what we in the English speaking world does to are language or, how quick those change's get elevated to the status of "correct usage", as long as, its adaquate to successfully communicate. And, if I would of known that people were gonna, like, totally resent me coming across as an highbrow snob, well, I would of never of spoken up in the first place. Cause thats something the world needs less of. Less language snobs and more honest, hard working, folks like you and I.
Re:Defending the undefendable
jordan on 2002-07-17T01:57:33
Wow! I guess you put me in my place with your witty Parade of Horribles showing just what would happen if we lose our tight grasp on correct usage.
I've seen the light!
Now, I'm frightened by the prospect that I might inadvertently use some low-grade word like "defendable" or *shudder* "extendable" and not realize that these are only used by lazy thinkers without finer appreciation for The English Language.
Please, tell me, where can I learn which words are improper and which are approved? Obviously, the dictionary is of no use here. Sure, most any dictionary points out that "irregardless" is a nonstandard usage, but what about these more subtle cases? I've checked several dictionaries and style manuals and none of them deprecate the words "defendable" or "extendable" and recommend the more correct defensible and extensible.
Must I build wait to build up a collection of proper usage from these JPPPP lessons that you provide so graciously before I speak or post again?
