TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
>But if there is, I would think the "e" would be required to soften the "ch".
I'm not sure why the existence of the 'e' would necessarily serve to soften the
'ch' (chess, catches, etc.). I understand the 'e' (or 'i') would normally
soften a standalone 'c' or 'g' (silence or garage), but not the blend. Since
there are more inconsistent spelling rules out there than I care to remember,
however, I could be wrong. But I think it's just one of those weird techie
words that people will have to wrestle with for awhile until Webster catches
up. For anyone into spelling rules, there is a rule-of-thumb for using 'able'
or 'ible' -- If you can remove the suffix and retain a complete word, use
'able' (e.g., workable); otherwise, use 'ible (e.g., eligible).' The
application of that rule in this case would result in either "Cacheable" or
"Cachible." Of course, like most spelling rules, there are always exceptions.
In the absence of an authority, I see no reason why you can't apply this rule
to spell "Cacheable." If I were to use the word, I would spell it that way. At
least there is a rationale behind it.
