12

I am using 'loggable' in the name of an interface written in a .NET programming language. It is among the many words that make sense in a programming context but aren't (yet) listed in English Dictionaries, as are serializable, deserialization, and multiton. Loggable seems like the correct spelling to me, but I can't pinpoint the reason. Similar words such as floggable and taggable have double 'g', but Google search also returns usage of their single 'g' counterparts, albeit the single 'g' seems to be less widespread.

Does anyone know a reason my brain likes "loggable" as opposed to "logable" for the correct spelling? A concrete rule would be great.

coleopterist
  • 31,031
djv
  • 566
  • 1
    Yes, that is the spelling. And it is a word, meaning 'capable of being logged legally'. As for the reasons, it's a long story. – John Lawler Mar 11 '13 at 23:30
  • Why "loggable", not "logable"? I can't find it in a dictionary. Is it legal jargon, just as it is programming jargon? – djv Mar 11 '13 at 23:33
  • 1
    @DanVerdolino Because that is how it works. See droppable, dottable, gettable, hittable, settable, stoppable vs impotable, notable, votable. – tchrist Mar 11 '13 at 23:43
  • @tchrist so the general rule is double the consonant unless the word ends in a silent e? I see exceptions in peaceable and abolishable among others, but I accept it. – djv Mar 11 '13 at 23:49
  • 1
    Single consonant, short vowel: it can't be alone; it needs its pal! – Carolyn Mar 12 '13 at 00:01
  • 6
    No, the rule is: if the vowel was short in Middle English (/ɪ ɛ æ ɔ ə/) and it uses only one vowel letter and it's in a syllable ended by a consonant, then you double the consonant in spelling. If you don't, you get a vowel that was long in Middle English, and is now tense, respectively, /ay i e o u/. If you know Middle English, this is not a problem. If you don't, however, it is. – John Lawler Mar 12 '13 at 00:03
  • http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/loggable –  Mar 12 '13 at 00:07
  • 1
    The other question (if it were a not-yet-existent word) would be -able or -ible. – GEdgar Mar 12 '13 at 02:11
  • 1
    If it can be legible, it could be logible (with a softened g)? (Incidentally, the latter means 'transportable' from logistics.) – Kris Mar 12 '13 at 06:00
  • @JohnLawler most people can't reference knowledge of Middle English to determine a correct spelling. – djv Mar 12 '13 at 14:20
  • @simchona Google 'logable' and you will see that spelling being widely used. It is not as cut and dry as you thought. Thank you, however, for turning me off from ELU. – djv Mar 12 '13 at 14:22
  • @Kris I'll use 'loggable' because it looks better, but 'legible' piqued my interest. However, I can't find the English infinitive of legible. – djv Mar 12 '13 at 14:25
  • 1
    Googling "logable" also yields the correction "did you mean loggable" –  Mar 12 '13 at 15:01
  • 3
    @DanVerdolino: That's because it's a Latin infinitive: lego, legere, legi, lectus 'read'. Legibilis is a Latin adjective, which was borrowed along with dozens of other Latin words from the same root. Look up any verb in a Latin dictionary (they're cheap at used bookstores) and you'll find a half-dozen words from the same root that we use in English, already minted by the Romans and imported into English in one of the waves of Latin and French that poured into England. – John Lawler Mar 12 '13 at 18:03
  • @simchona Google suggest is not an authority. It tells us 'loggable' is more widely used. It is my preferred spelling. I was just asking for a rule since the search also displays many examples of 'logable' – djv Mar 12 '13 at 18:17
  • @JohnLawler of course Latin sees its roots in many English words. I thought it was interesting that the infinitive of 'legible' didn't make it into English, which might have given us a look into a reasoning behind 'logable' over 'loggable'... Anyway, I like 'loggable' and if you want to compile your very helpful Middle English and Latin explanations, I will mark as answer. Thanks – djv Mar 12 '13 at 18:23
  • *Logable is wrong because it violates the existing pattern that applies to all other such words. It must be, and is, loggable. – tchrist Mar 12 '13 at 21:05
  • @tchrist all I was asking was for a concrete rule. There are many words in the English language which have spelling that violate existing patterns and are not wrong. – djv Mar 12 '13 at 21:54

1 Answers1

9

Yes, loggable appears to be in use and preferred over logable. You appear to prefer it to because you are accustomed to the pattern with other words such as the ones listed in your post.

Most people here will tell you that there are no concrete rules in English. But as a rule of thumb, for words ending with a single consonant, if the suffix begins with a vowel, then the afore-noted consonant is doubled. Therefore, log becomes loggable.

There are, I'm sure, many exceptions to this rule, some of which can be explained with caveats involving stress and other whatnots.

Here is John Lawler's explanation from the comments:

No, the rule is: if the vowel was short in Middle English (/ɪ ɛ æ ɔ ə/) and it uses only one vowel letter and it's in a syllable ended by a consonant, then you double the consonant in spelling. If you don't, you get a vowel that was long in Middle English, and is now tense, respectively, /ay i e o u/. If you know Middle English, this is not a problem. If you don't, however, it is.

That's because it's a Latin infinitive: lego, legere, legi, lectus 'read'. Legibilis is a Latin adjective, which was borrowed along with dozens of other Latin words from the same root. Look up any verb in a Latin dictionary (they're cheap at used bookstores) and you'll find a half-dozen words from the same root that we use in English, already minted by the Romans and imported into English in one of the waves of Latin and French that poured into England.

Community
  • 1
coleopterist
  • 31,031