From deepayan at stat.wisc.edu  Wed Feb 11 04:14:27 2004
From: deepayan at stat.wisc.edu (Deepayan Sarkar)
Date: Wed Feb 11 04:14:46 2004
Subject: [Rd] Spelling (PR#6570)
In-Reply-To: <4029929B.6060003@jhsph.edu>
References: <20040211001358.1420BEAD6@slim.kubism.ku.dk>
	<4029929B.6060003@jhsph.edu>
Message-ID: <200402102114.27039.deepayan@stat.wisc.edu>

On Tuesday 10 February 2004 20:25, Roger D. Peng wrote:
> Unfortunately, with English it's conceivable that they're both
> correct.  But the double 't' sounds/looks *more* correct to me.
> Of course, this is coming from a native English speaker who is
> generally unfamiliar with the rules of English.
>
> On the other hand:
>
> test --> testable?
> arrest --> arrestable?
> contest --> contestable?
> detest --> detestable?
> ...
>
> So maybe the single 't' is correct.  Did that clear things up?

This is probably not a valid comparison, since test->testing whereas 
set->setting. 

Oxford (OED) lists the word 'settable' but not 'setable'. subsettable (or 
subsetable) is obviously an artificial word (we use subset as a verb), but 
presumably invented derivatives of 'subset' should behave in a manner similar 
to those of 'set'.

Deepayan

>
> -roger
>
> p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk wrote:
> > I came across this in connection with an unrelated issue
> >
> >>beta[2]
> >
> > Error in beta[2] : object is not subsettable
> >
> >>beta[2] <- 5
> >
> > Error in "[<-"(`*tmp*`, 2, value = 5) : object is not subsetable
> >
> > One of the messages must be wrong, but I need a native English speaker
> > to tell me which one.
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
> https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel


[Rd] Spelling (PR#6570)
Deepayan Sarkar