std.stream.Stream.writeable

[Alix Pexton]

Gregor Richards wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> "Janice Caron" <caron800 at googlemail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:mailman.60.1195068267.2338.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>>> On 11/14/07, Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com> wrote:
>>>> Both are ok, actually.
>>>>
>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/writeable
>>> Oh! <embarrassed>
>>>
>>> Well, they're not in England. I also checked in Merriam-Webster before
>>> posting, just to see how the Americans spelt it. It would appear that
>>> different American dictionaries say different things. Hey ho.
>>
>> It's interesting to see this change.  I'm in the -e- insertion camp, I 
>> never knew the e was dropped in these -able compounds.  I also think 
>> 'writable' looks like it'd be pronounced 'RIT-able' since the e went 
>> away, which might by what's driving this change.
>>
>> SPELLING IS FUN
>>
> 
> Heh, whenever I see the variants that include an 'e', I read (e.g.) 
> write-ee-ah-blay. This is just because I'm used to it not being there, 
> of course.
> 
> Bloody English, what's wrong with phonetic spelling anyway? ^^
> 
>  - Gregor Richards

I'm in the no-e camp...

The fact that it is a single 't' after the 'i' implies that the word had an 'e' before
the sufix was added, if there had been no 'e' then the terminal consonant would have
been doubled to make "Writtable". When compounding words like this one should also try
to avoid creating false diphthongs.

Seems like this is a very odd occasion where US English has added an un-needed letter
instead of omiting one. When I was younger I used to resent having to miss out the u
when typing "color" related code.

As for phonetic spelling, its a nice idea, but it places more burdon on context when
there are multiple meanings for the same spoken sound.

A...