I would tend to write double-l, but Google gives me more single-l, so I'm guessing it's an Atlantic divide thing.
And I guess all the other *full words.
Asked
Active
Viewed 1.2e+01k times
40
-
11There seems to be a trend of "Is X/Y a British English/American English difference?" questions where X is a word, and Y is a typo. – Seamus Nov 02 '10 at 12:54
-
(I removed the "single-word-request" tag, because it doesn't seem to apply.) – Marthaª Nov 02 '10 at 14:55
-
7@Seamus: This question reverses the trend, in this case X is a typo – Vinko Vrsalovic Nov 02 '10 at 20:05
2 Answers
74
I would say successfull is a typo. Neither Merriam-Webster nor Wiktionary mention it as an alternative spelling. The British National Corpus has 10695 cites for successful and exactly one for successfull. According to OneLook, 33 dictionaries have an entry for successful, but only Wordnik has a few cites for successfull (without a definition).
Edit: by popular request, I will add that the adverb successfully is written with two L's. Successfuly would be incorrect.
RegDwigнt
- 97,231
-
4Yes, "successfully" is correct, but "successfull" is not. And OneLook seems to be a very nice resource for us here (+1 for that link too) – b.roth Nov 02 '10 at 09:24
39
Only full is spelled with two Ls. All other -ful words are spelled with only one L: helpful, successful, skillful, beautiful.
Tim Lymington
- 35,168
Alexandru
- 697
-
4To add an especially interesting case: chock full vs chock-full vs chockful. – RegDwigнt Nov 02 '10 at 15:10
-
3However, skillful vs skilful is a difference between en-us and en-gb. And full undoubles the l when used as a prefix too, as in e.g. fulsome and fulfil. – Peter Taylor Sep 10 '12 at 15:05
-
3Interesting. If you fill a sock with pennies, do you have a sockful or a sockfull? – Tim Lymington Mar 03 '13 at 20:58