Language desk
< November 11	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	Current desk >

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.

November 12[edit]

"Reconcileable" - two "e's" or three?[edit]

Hello reference desk! I'm currently transcribing this work over on Wikisource. It's from the late 1700's and thus there are a lot of archaic spellings of english words. Usually I can look them up on Wiktionary or Google to see whether it's a misspelling by the author or just the way the word was written back then. However, I've run into a bit of a snag on this page. The author, Alexander Hamilton writes 'reconcilable" as "reconcileable", but the thing that bothers me is that it is written like this:

[...]pre-existence of a speculation connection reconcile- able with this mode of expression?

As you can see, the word moves across a line break. So my question is, when I transcribe the word should it be written as "reconcileable" or "reconcile-able"? If "reconcileable" was a regular word back then, the hyphen is obviously just because of the line break, but perhaps it's a combo word where he combines "reconcile" and "able" and thus a hyphen is needed regardless of whether there is a line break. I hope someone can help me out with this. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 11:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an old spelling [1]. The hyphen would only be used at a line break. That said, it's one of those words which can be spelt either way, e.g. movable - moveable, judgment - judgement. 80.44.161.39 (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can transcribe it as reconcile[-]able to keep the ambiguity, instead of resolving it one way or another. Even though reconcileable was an old spelling, there's no way to tell whether the author meant to use the hyphen or not. --2A02:C7D:8E27:300:9CFC:73A:5E5C:AE7A (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the older cites in the OED spell the word "reconcileable", but the latest cites with this spelling are from 1873 by James Clerk Maxwell, and in 1882, in a book on Dickens by A W Ward. The modern spelling omits the middle "e" and the longer spelling is no longer considered correct in British English (per OED). There are no cites that contain a hyphenated form. Dbfirs 12:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot everyone! Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 12:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one from the twenty - first century.[2]. 80.44.161.39 (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, twice, by Philip Saffman. I must admit that I prefer this spelling, but the facts that I like it, and Philip Saffman uses it, don't mean that it is considered a correct spelling in modern English. No dictionary includes it. Dbfirs 13:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Oxford English Dictionary includes it. The header for "reconcilable" says

a. Also -cileable. [f. RECONCILE v. + -ABLE.]

Which version are you reading? The big Oxford, in its 2009 update, specifies that spelling only as a historical spelling, and not as a current spelling. Oxford Online doesn't have that spelling at all. Dbfirs 15:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... later ... Oh, I see, you are looking at the Second Edition of 1989. The update makes clear that the spelling with a middle "e" is only a historic spelling. I'll correct my comment above to "no current dictionary includes it". Dbfirs 16:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As has been commented before, dictionaries are not supposed to be prescriptive. If a spelling is in current use [3] it's not for them to mark it as "historical". 80.44.161.39 (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct about dictionaries, but a spelling that is current will appear regularly in edited works, not just in the occasional book where it has slipped through. The spelling with the extra "e" was more common in both British and American English until about 1850, after when it rapidly faded from use. Google books finds only about ten books published in the last 100 years where that spelling is used. The OED now considers that this is insufficient usage to be regarded as a current spelling, but I agree that it's a borderline case. Dbfirs 16:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd make it reconciliable, to match reconciliation. —Tamfang (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite free to do so, but you'd be wrong insamuch as it would indicate a different pronunciation, whereas "reconcilable" and "reconcileable" are pronounced the same. In effect, you'd be inventing a new word. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.130.104 (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not a new word. There are cites for "reconciliable" in the OED ranging from 1609 to 2003 including one usage by Milton and one from The Times of 1830. The word is much less common than "reconcilable" (by a factor of 100), but much more common in recent usage than the archaic spelling "reconcileable". Dbfirs 21:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected [memo to self: always check!], but I suggest that it's sufficiently rare that most listeners/readers would assume it to be an error. {The poster foremrly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.130.104 (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that pronunciation was an issue in interpreting what Alexander Hamilton wrote. —Tamfang (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't, in that Hamilton's -ea- spelling would be and is pronounced the same as the now dominant -a- spelling, because the retained -e isn't pronounced in the root word anyway; but your suggested, rare -ia- spelling is pronounced differently. If words are primarily spoken entities, and their spellings secondary, the -ia- version is a different word, albeit with the same meaning. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.130.104 (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I wasn't aware that pronunciation was an issue in interpreting what Alexander Hamilton wrote" baffles me. I always hear the words when I read anything, and a jarring or inconsistent sound when reading can upset or even derail understanding. DuncanHill (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cough, Wednesday, island, colonel... Ian.thomson (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the sort of person who imagines that English pronunciation is necessarily defined by English spelling. This is because I learnt to read before phonics was invented to confuse people. DuncanHill (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And "island" ought to be spelt "iland" as any fule kno. DuncanHill (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the Molesworth System of spelling reform. Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once someone on Usenet, whose written English was impeccable, surprised everyone (by which I mean me) by disclaiming knowledge of English pronunciation. —Tamfang (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese translation help[edit]

大丈夫です。けど、返事に困るのでテキストで書くのやめてほしいな・・・

I understand all the words but I'm having trouble with the grammar in the second sentence. Context is: we were making plans to meet up and I got this reply. I can't work out if he wants me to stop replying by text, or if he wants to stop replying by text or maybe there is something else I'm missing.

I can't ask him at the moment because he's traveling in a area with bad Internet.

Thanks, 80.111.53.193 (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

やめてほしい means he wants you to stop texting (if he wanted to stop, it would be やめたい). 返事に困る means he's having some sort of trouble replying. -- BenRG (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]