4

Today I learnt that revoke + able would make revocable. What's the reasoning for this? Are there any other examples like this?

Nae
  • 231
  • 1
    evoke / evocable etc; invoke / invocable etc; provoke / provocable etc. Not poke, smoke, yoke. Possibly just verbs ending -voke. But then there's joke / jocular. But this is arguably off-topic, asking for a list. Though I won't close-vote, as in this case the list might be short and not unuseful. – Edwin Ashworth Apr 06 '20 at 16:50
  • 2
    the real question is: why does the K of verbs like revoke, provoke etc. turns into a c in the adjectival form? – user 66974 Apr 06 '20 at 16:52
  • @Hachi The words whose etymologies I've looked up and that are from the Latin all start off with the c. 'Poke' is Germanic in origin. But OP doesn't ask for etymologies of given word/s (which would trigger the 'research required' requirement). – Edwin Ashworth Apr 06 '20 at 16:57
  • I'm guessing this is for hysterical reasons. – Hot Licks Apr 06 '20 at 17:09
  • 6
    I would upvote this question if you turned it into a question about why some words ending in -ke become -cable (and/or -cative), while others become -kable (or -keable). As Edwin Ashworth observes, there is a strong (and justified) bias against list request on this site—but the issue of differential ending change that you raise is interesting, especially if it turns out to be largely explicable in terms of the different language origins of the root words. (I would also change your tag from 'single-word-requests' to 'suffixes' and maybe 'orthography'.) – Sven Yargs Apr 06 '20 at 17:09
  • 2
    This is not a question about English, but about the vagaries of English spelling. Sounds don't come from letters -- letters come from sounds. – John Lawler Apr 06 '20 at 17:44
  • 3
    @JohnLawler - How are vagaries of English spelling not about English? – user 66974 Apr 06 '20 at 18:01
  • 3
    Because they don't have any relation to the English language, only to the technology for recording it, which simply piles up changes like Windows versions, all following different rules, none of which refer to the language. – John Lawler Apr 06 '20 at 18:16
  • 2
    Normally when you turn C to K you've got to add 273.15. Turning C to F is a hair more complicated. – Hot Licks Apr 06 '20 at 18:21
  • 1
    @SvenYargs I updated the question based on your suggestion, thanks. – Nae Apr 07 '20 at 13:35
  • 1
    Whatever reasons there might be for this question being off-topic, being about English spelling isn't among them. This site's scope includes English language -- there is no restriction to spoken English. And to call writing "only ... the technology for recording it" sells it woefully short. – Rosie F May 18 '20 at 16:50

1 Answers1

5

It's Latin vs Germanic origin.

Consider the following examples:

Likeable, unlikeable, makeable - Germanic origin

These words are of Germanic origin. And German allow 'k' in suffixed words.

On the other hand,

Revocable, invocable, provocable - Latin origin

These words are derived from Latin revocare, invocare and provocare respectively.

In Latin, they're pronounced with /k/ sound (it's obvious from the spelling - 'care', c often gives /k/ sound when it precedes 'e').

These words are anglicised to revoke, invoke and provoke.

Where did the k come from: In order to maintain the /k/ sound (which is in the original pronunciation 'care'), the 'ce' was changed to 'ke'. Because if it were written as 'revoce' it would be pronounced with /s/ sound rather than the original /k/ sound.

Hachi's comment:

The real question is: why does the K of verbs like revoke, provoke etc. turns into a c in the adjectival form?

When a suffix is added to revoke, the 'k' changes to 'c' because it's not allowed in Latin (and Latin words in English) to have 'k' in suffixed words. Latin does not allow the letter 'k' at all.

Therefore, revoke + able -> revo(_)able/ revoke + tion -> revocation ---> 'k' is not allowed, we need another letter than gives /k/ sound (original sound) before the letter 'a' - the only letter (other than 'k' because 'k' is not allowed) that gives /k/ sound before 'a' is c.

  • Revoke + able -> revocable.
  • Invoke + able -> invocable
  • Provoke + able -> provocable

However, 'notice' is also from Latin but it does not have the letter 'k' because the original pronunciation (in Latin) has /s/ sound rather than /k/ sound. In order to maintain the original sound, we write 'notice' with c sound because 'c' often gives /s/ sound when it precedes e.

Notice + able -> noticeable not noticable because it changes the original pronunciation of the base word.

Why doesn't Latin allow the letter k: Lewis and Short also have a look at Latin SE

I found another similar question but the answers there do not address the 'why'.

Decapitated Soul
  • 16,598
  • 3
    This is broadly right, but I'd quibble over some details. The forms with 'c', like revocable and vocation are mostly borrowed from French or Latin, rather than being formed in English, so they came with a 'c'. The outlier is the verb form with 'k', which has been remodelled in English, as you say, apparently to avoid the 'oce' spelling. So it's not English using 'c' instead of 'k'; it's English not changing 'c' to 'k' in those contexts. Notice is quite different because it was remodelled in French: the Latin word is notitia, which has neither 'c' nor 'k' – Colin Fine May 18 '20 at 12:17
  • "it's not allowed in Latin (and Latin words in English) to have 'k' in suffixed words." Then why do we have "embark" and "embarkation"? – Arunabh Bhattacharya Feb 02 '22 at 21:42
  • I personally think "ka" should be written throughout Latin instead of "ca". "c" should instead use the /t͜ʃ/ phoneme everywhere as there is no letter to write that phoneme. – Arunabh Bhattacharya May 03 '22 at 22:17
  • Why does "remarkable" use "k" even though it is of Latin origin? – Arunabh Bhattacharya Jun 01 '22 at 22:02