Cacheable

Subject: Cacheable
From: Barry West <Barry_West -dot- S2K -at- S2KEXT -dot- S2K -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 09:07:15 EDT

>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.


Barry_West.S2K @ s2kext.s2k.com @ INTERNET


Previous by Author: Proofreading
Next by Author: Cacheable/Cachable
Previous by Thread: Proofreading
Next by Thread: Cacheable/Cachable


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads