Language desk
< December 4	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 5

Knowledge me up

Consider words such as 'employable', 'doable', 'payable', 'moveable', 'taxable', 'changeable', 'breakable' and so on. Even 'wikifiable'. These all have the form Xable, and mean 'able to be Xed' or 'there is a requirement they be Xed'.

Now consider the word 'knowledgeable'. It refers to one who has already acquired considerable knowledge. It does not mean "able to be knowledged", except that by making certain assumptions it might mean the person is capable of being knowledged further, and even that assumes the existence of the verb "to knowledge", which would be a false assumption even in these days of rampant and wanton verbification.

I note that wikt: -able provides more than one meaning for -able, but none of the meanings seem to fit 'knowledgeable'.

I wonder why we use the -able ending in 'knowledgeable' when the -able does not imply what it does in other words of this form. Are there any other words like this?

Are there any knowledgeable persons out there who can ~~knowledge me up about~~ shed light on this question? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is (dis)agreeable? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another similar word is "sensible" when used with the meanings "having good sense" or "capable of perceiving things". Sensible actually works both ways in English - it can mean either capable of sense ("he is a very sensible young man") or capable of being sensed ("Plato distinguished between the sensible world and the intelligible world").[1] Compare "insensible" which can mean either "comatose" (being unable to sense one's surroundings) or "imperceptible" (unable to be sensed). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinatingly enough, the suffixes -able, -ible, -ability, and -ibility are actually not etymologically related to the adjective/noun able and ability. The former came from Latin pretty much as is, from -ibilis and -ābilis, suffixes meaning "ability", "worthiness", "capacity", "fitness". The latter came from a completely different word, the adjective habilis, from habeō (to have).

So while we've traditionally viewed the suffixes as "being able to X", it can be used with a noun as "the capacity for X".-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're not completely different, since the Latin suffix was also originally the word habilis. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that too, but no. -ābilis and -ibilis (and the unmentioned third form -ubilis) are simply different forms of the Latin adjectival suffix -bilis (equivalent to English -ble) with added vowel stems.

From the Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology:

-ble — (O)F. — L. -bilis, adj. suffix denoting tendency, fitness, ability, or capability of doing or being something; added to vb. -stems, as flēbilis lamentable, tearful. f. flēre weep; mōbilis easily moved, mobile. stabilis steadfast, stable; with vb.-stems in a, i, and u it combined to form the compound suffixes repr. in Eng. by -able, -ible, and -uble, of which the first (the only one in living use) is by far the most common, and capable of being compounded with any verb; the last is repr. only in soluble, voluble. The corr. abstract nouns end in -bility and advs. in -bly.

habilis on the other hand, is from the conjugation of hab (ēre) and the suffix -ilis (modern English/French -ile in words like docile, gracile, fragile). Very different things.

I also found this paper viewable in [frustratingly] short previews here, which discusses the Modern French and English conflation of the Latin suffix -bilis with the ME free morpheme able thus restricting its modern acceptable conjunctions only to verbs despite that not being the original case (several examples are given like OF aidable - looks like "helpable" but actually means "helpful"; decevable - looks likes "deceivable" but actually means "full of deceptions", "deceiving").

Carola Trips; Achim Stein (2008). "Was Old French -able borrowable? A diachronic study of word-formation processes due to language contact". In Maurizio Gotti; Marina Dossena; Richard Dury (eds.). English Historical Linguistics 2006. Voume 2: Lexical and Semantic Change. John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 217–239. ISBN 9789027248114.

-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OED Historical Thesaurus suggests that the word has undergone a change in meaning over the years. Comfortable has done the same - In 1377 it had the meaning 'able to give comfort'; that is, something or someone that can comfort you. The sense of something comforting you still applies in the phrase 'a comfortable chair', although when applied to a person, as in 'I am comfortable', we now use it to mean 'in a state of comfort'. Similarly, knowledgeable originally meant 'able to be known', or, more loosely, something that can be recognized, as in this sentence, from E. Topsell's Hist. Fovre-footed Beastes (1607):

Let him but set vp a stick or staffe, or some such other knowledgable marke, in the middle space betwixt him and the wolfe, and it will scar him away.

In turn, this was derived from an earlier sense of knowledge; used as a verb to mean 'to admit to knowledge of'. In this sense, it appears in the Book of Common Prayer in 1549 thus:

[They] stode and knowleged their synnes, and the wyckednesses of their fathers.

Over time, knowledge lost the ability to act as a verb (the slack being taken up by acknowledge), and came to the meaning we now use, that of the condition of knowing something. As it did so, knowledgeable underwent the same change as comfortable; from 'able to be knowledged' (i.e. a synonym of recognizable) to 'in a state of knowledge'. The OED suggests that this change was influenced by Irish, saying

The adjective may have been formed so as to enable the Irish construction with the postposed genitive feasa (nominative fios knowledge: see wit v.1) to be translated by a premodified noun phrase (which is more natural in spoken English).

Unfortunately, I am not knowledgeable enough about C18th Irish to know how correct this might be. Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But knowledgeable enough to have given a very good answer to my question. Thank you, everyone. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standardly

Is "standardly" a legitimate word? Why do spellcheckers not recognize it? It is in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. 205.156.136.229 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike French, the English language has no central authority with the power to decide which words are legitimate and which are not. Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds legit to me. Spellcheckers are always abridged, meaning they miss the less common words. Thus, a word flagged by a spellchecker isn't necessarily wrong, it just needs manual checking. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please find a way to avoid using it if you can, though. Sounds awkward. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see an increasing use of the grammatically poor "XYZ is standardly included." There are a host of better ways to write that. Unfortunately, while the French have an institute dedicated to the preservation of (their) proper language, the English standard is that anything sufficiently repeated becomes part of the standard vernacular regardless of its grammatical worthiness. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of course pre-supposes that "worthiness" is not something which is defined by the bulk of the speakers of a language. --Jayron32 18:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I'd expect that attempts to regulate the language would be about as successful as attempts to regulate prices. That is, while they can be regulated a bit in the short term, in the long term both the language and economy go where they want, and the regulators must ultimately yield to the reality or become irrelevant. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The catch there, Peters, is that whatever may be the standard vernacular at any point in time is the grammatical standard. It is the duty of all right-thinking people to resist disgusting phenomena like the use of "transition" as a verb, but sometimes these things acquire a critical mass, resistance becomes futile, and thus we have language change. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use standardly all the time especially when I'm translating for German as there is no better English translation for standardmäßig. If my spellchecker doesn't recognize it, I add it. Angr (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In a standard manner"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 21:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, "as a standard" or "as a default". But why not just use standardly? Angr (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what? Standardly appears in the OED defined as "[i]n a standard manner; according to common practice; normally, generally", and is attested by two citations, one from 1957 and the other from 1978. Have to say I've not come across it before, though. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 21:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.onelook.com/?w=standardly&ls=a and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/standardly and http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/standardly. Also, my Google News search for standardly reported 12 results, including http://spatialnews.geocomm.com/dailynews/2011/nov/14/news2.html (see paragraph 2).

—Wavelength (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"standardly" is an abomination in my opinion. 86.148.152.251 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What other word would you use to describe something that had the demeanour of a Lamp standard? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason? I've never understood why some people pick words at random and declare they don't like them. What if I were to say, "this and do are abominations in my opinion"? Angr (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're chosen at random. Are you saying it's bad to have an aesthetic response to neologisms (and other words and phrases)? We mustn't confuse the principle that the language is what people use regardless of our personal opinions, with the rather soul-destroying idea that therefore we must not have feelings about the language people use. I don't have a problem with standardly, but I can see why someone else might. It's healthy to explore this side of our relationship with language, so long as we're not Nazis about it. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The process of making an adverb out of an adjective by adding -ly is fully productive in English. Why pick one such instance and declare it "awkward" and an "abomination"? It certainly seems random to me. Peters J V above calls standardly included "grammatically poor" but uses grammatically poor and sufficiently repeated himself. Why are those two okay but standardly included isn't? What's the difference? Is he going to object to my use of fully productive in the first sentence of this post? (I have absolutely no way of predicting the answer to that question.) And what's the point of having an aesthetic response to language? Do bees criticize each other's dance moves? Do birds criticize each other's songs and flight techniques? Why not focus on the content of what someone is saying instead of the aesthetics of the packaging? Angr (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Language isn't so standardificabilitous. Although -ly typically forms adverbs (it's one of the most consistent inflection patterns in English), it doesn't automatically mean that every single time it's attached to an adjective it's standard or neutral, or even acceptable. "He writes goodly" is not quite the same as "He writes well", and "She works hardly" is not accepted as an alternative to "She works hard".

As for your question "what's the point of having an aesthetic response to language?" - indeed, what's the point of fussing over whether you live in a grey concrete block or a palace, eat processed sludge or cordon bleu? It's all function, innit. The last thing we should do is worry about whether we actually like what we're consuming. That would be madness. It might lead to poetry and fine prose, and then where would we be? ;-) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, everyone is entitled to his aesthetic preferences as regards words. Personally I find whilst and amongst terribly grating. On the other hand, I'm very fond of the words chupacabra, Tucumcari, and synecdoche. But standardly? That's pretty bland; why should anyone care either way? --Trovatore (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptozoological peeve: the Spanish original is chupacabras (sing.), "sucker of goats" - perhaps the usual English rendering "goat-sucker" has through its numerical ambiguity given rise to the false singular "chupacabra", but many active Fortean zoologists prefer "chupacabras." Note that even our own article is titled "Chupacabra" but begins "The Chupacabras . . . is a legendary cryptid . . . :-) .

Oh, and "goodly" may be deprecated as a synonym for "well" because of its existing if archaic usage as an adjective - "He ate a goodly portion of viands." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.198 (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware that chupacabras is technically more correct. But it just doesn't roll off the tongue the same way. --Trovatore (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

My guess is that it appears rarely and it stands out because of this. As such, perhaps it draws more attention to itself than its use here demands and makes the sentence feel a bit awkward (after all, why choose this rare formation rather than "as standard", or in the case of the example above, "typically included"?). That doesn't make standardly wrong, and it's not grammatically poor. I'm just pointing out (a) that being ugly/unappealing and being wrong are not the same thing in language, and (b) we shouldn't suppress the validity (I would also argue importance) of aesthetic opinions about language. I don't have a problem with "standardly", but I feel a bit Voltaire-ish about the right of people to say they do, so long as they don't say it's "wrong".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But they don't have the right to say so here. This is the reference desk for factual questions, not Twitter. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "factual" answer. It is a matter of opinion. 81.159.106.246 (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's mainly factual. Q. "Is "standardly" a legitimate word?" A. Yes, because the OP already told us it's in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, and we also now know it's in the OED. It's a fact that we don't standardly encounter "standardly" in well-written texts. It's a fact that certain words are recognised in dictionaries but most people still prefer not to use them. Their reasons will vary, and that's the only subjective part of this issue. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"legitimate" according to who? There is no definitive source to consult. In borderline cases such as this, dictionaries include or exclude words based on the opinions of their compilers. 86.177.107.177 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always apply the Scrabble Test in such cases. A word is acceptable in an English Scrabble game (as long as it isn't a proper noun) if it appears in an English dictionary. "Standardly" appears in at least 2 English dictionaries, and is therefore a valid, legitimate, recognised, acceptable or whatever-other-adjective-you-may-care-to-use word for Scrabble purposes. Put it this way: people may prefer never to use it, and that's their choice; but those who do should never be told it's unacceptable on the grounds that it isn't a recognised word - because it clearly is a recognised word. What's recognised does not come down to "What I personally have heard of". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some spellcheckers don't recognise my username either, even though it is a perfectly cromulent word in English: wikt:theurgist. --Theurgist (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]