From MSchwartz at medanalytics.com  Wed Feb 11 05:37:30 2004
From: MSchwartz at medanalytics.com (Marc Schwartz)
Date: Wed Feb 11 05:38:34 2004
Subject: [Rd] Spelling (PR#6570)
In-Reply-To: <F160BE32A2E5E04497668BBDFE83FEDF093C8040@EXCHVS1.medctr.ad.wfubmc.edu>
References: <F160BE32A2E5E04497668BBDFE83FEDF093C8040@EXCHVS1.medctr.ad.wfubmc.edu>
Message-ID: <1076474250.25682.121.camel@localhost.localdomain>

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.

Marc


[Rd] Spelling (PR#6570)
Marc Schwartz