Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

jdporter (36)

jdporter
  (email not shown publicly)
http://users.starpower.net/j.porter
Yahoo! ID: johndporter (Add User, Send Message)

Journal of jdporter (36)

Monday July 15, 2002
04:46 PM

JPPPP

[ #6373 ]

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.


List all Journal entries
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

JPPPP 17 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I'm not that bothered by "extendable", though I wouldn't use it myself. After all, "-able" is a productive suffix, so "extendable" can coexist alongside "extensible" just as "drinkable" can coexist alongside "potable", and "believable" alongside "credible". The one that bothers me is "extendible" -- you have to make up your mind which way you're going.
    • 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>
      • 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
        • 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 attest

          • Re:Extendable (Score:2, Informative)

            by vsergu (505)
            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
  • 'extension' vs 'extention'. The latter vexes.
    --
      ---ict / Spoon
  • Defendable [dictionary.com] and undefendable [dictionary.com] are perfectly good words.

    So is extendable [dictionary.com], but extensible [dictionary.com] 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.

    • 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.
      • 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 de

        • 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 worki
          • 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

  • It's just morphology, folks, nothing to see here, move along...
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.