From ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk  Mon Feb 16 18:20:45 2004
From: ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk (Prof Brian Ripley)
Date: Mon Feb 16 18:21:08 2004
Subject: [Rd] Spelling (PR#6570)
In-Reply-To: <1076474250.25682.121.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0402161714390.26899-100000@gannet.stats>

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Marc Schwartz wrote:

> On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 21:57, Latchezar Dimitrov wrote:
> > Oxford English Dictionary (online)
> > 
> > Subset, v.
> > 
> >   trans. To underlet, sublet.
> >  
> >   1681 STAIR Inst. Law Scot. I. xiii. 253 As the half may be sub-sett,
> > so any other right less then the value of the half, is sustained as an
> > Infeftment of warrandice. 1752 Scots Mag. Nov. 551/2 A small farm..,
> > which he had subset at about 6 l. Sterling per annum. 1801 Farmer's
> > Mag. Nov. 381 A missive of tack,..which made no mention of
> > assignees,..was..found, neither capable of being assigned, nor subset.
> > 1806 SCOTT Fam. Lett. (1894) I. 35, I have subset the whole of the
> > sheep farm. 1838 W. BELL Dict. Law Scot. 582 To assign or subset a
> > lease of the ordinary endurance of nineteen years.
> >  
> > 
> >     b. absol. or intr.
> >  
> >   1801 Farmer's Mag. Nov. 379 A tack of lands does not imply a power,
> > either to assign, or even to subset. 1838 W. BELL Dict. Law Scot. 582
> > In such leases..an express authority to assign or subset must be
> > given.
> >  
> > 
> >     Hence subsetting vbl. n.; subsettable a., capable of being subset.
> >  
> >   a1722 FOUNTAINHALL Decis. I. 454 The axiom against sub-setting is
> > only against an assignment... But a sub-set is lawful, and was so
> > found 12 March 1686. 1765-8 ERSKINE Inst. Law Scot. II. vi. ??33 (1773)
> > 265 It remains a doubt, whether the power of subsetting is implied in
> > the nature of a tack, without a special clause. Ibid., By a subset the
> > principal tacksman is not changed. 1801 Farmer's Mag. Nov. 379 All
> > tacks, likewise, that are to subsist for a great length of time, are
> > also assignable, as well as subsettable.
> >  
> > Latchezar Dimitrov
> > 
> > PS. So you better ask non-native English speakers :-)
> 
> 
> LOL....
> 
> OK....this would make sense then if the aforementioned grammar rules
> were applied to the root word of 'set' rather than 'subset'. In other
> words, it would be 'settable' as opposed to 'setable', then add the
> prefix 'sub'.
> 
> If that is the case, then 'set' passes rule '3' regarding the accented
> syllable, since of course 'set' has only one syllable.
> 
> Well...there ya have it...English...as clear as mud.

Is this English or American (you know, the language referred to in the USA
as `English')?  The rules (and usages) for doubling do differ between the
two languages: they can even differ by meaning for words with two or more
meanings (and don't ask me for examples as I have forgotten them).

As an English English speaker, my sense and my employer's dictionary both
suggest doubling here.

-- 
Brian D. Ripley,                  ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk
Professor of Applied Statistics,  http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/
University of Oxford,             Tel:  +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road,                     +44 1865 272866 (PA)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK                Fax:  +44 1865 272595


[Rd] Spelling (PR#6570)
Prof Brian Ripley