Why do we ask if a person is "comfortable", rather than "comforted"? Seems to me that once a person is cozy enough to find themself in a state of comfort, they should not be described as "comfortable", as that implies a *potential for comfort and takes no note of the fact that the comforting has already been accomplished.
are there other -able words that fall into this category?
Arguable if they fit:equable,curable,durable,habitable,manageable,passable...
As you say, the "able" part looks to the future. In "comfortable" it does not seem to look to the future.
Hey, I just remembered "Miserable". The "able" here does not look to future!
good one, dr bill! miserable appears to be quite similar. i suppose we should by rights call ourselves miseried when in such a state, rather than miserable. then again, perhaps it's a nod to the old "things could be worse" axiom.
how intriguing that each of these words describes an emotional or physical state... does two make a pattern? are there more?
>each of these words describes an emotional or physical state
well, there are two meanings usually given for -able/-ible; one relates to a specific action, the other to a specified state. there are other state-ables, such as valuable, horrible.... but it must be said that these soon overlap with actions: honorable, dependable, delectable.
Actions: unalienable, malleable, illegible, indecipherable, and inscrutable
Constant state (inexorable, unreliable, and deplorable) = gullible. Also, able is a state.
(How does table fit into this mix? And cable? And ladle? A ladle lades out something, I suppose... But a table doesn't tabe anything... And a cable doesn't cabe anything? My mind's now quite addled, but that's another suffix.)
Intolerably disabled,
DubDub
Often in this Board I have the feeling that there are discussions based upon the fact that English speakers barely 'feel' latin roots in their words.
Here, to me ALL able -words and ible -words are similar, and expressing the "possibility of being something" . I mean,
honorable= which can be honored... and so on..
horrible, also, I feel that probably there is a latin verb similar to "to horror"= to look at with horror
so that horrible to me is something you can look at with horror..
Whitty wrote: Formidable question.
...
...yet not unfathomable
And the crucible...
What test would there be for deciding between "ible" and "able" when stumped about a spelling? Is there some fine point of distinction between the two suffixes?
WW
Why do we ask if a person is "comfortable", rather than "comforted"?
This doesn't really address the question, but. Consider that the opposite of comfortable is uncomfortable. We would not say discomfortable, but we do say discomforted.
Very different things, those; the former physical, the latter emotional, as generally used.
>We would not say discomfortable, but we do say discomforted.
does everyone agree with this? I most often hear discomfited...
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0100.html
>What test would there be for deciding between "ible" and "able"...
It is difficult to say when we are not to use -able instead of -ible. "Yet a rule may be laid down as to when we are to use it. To all verbs, then, from the Anglo-Saxon, to all based on the uncorrupted infinitival stems of Latin verbs of the first conjugation, and to all substantives, whencesoever sprung, we annex -able only.'' --Fitzed. Hall. - Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
HTH.
Oh, tsuwm, I was afraid someone would bring that up, and it would have to be you! Here's what Atomica has, under discomfited:
USAGE NOTE It is true that discomfit originally meant “to defeat, frustrate” and that its newer use meaning “to embarrass, disconcert” probably arose in part through confusion with discomfort. But the newer sense is now the most common use of the verb in all varieties of writing and should be considered entirely standard.
No, it doesn't say which of the two is more common, but I thought the history was interesting.
"ible" and "able"It's really quite simple, Wordwily. If ible were able to able then it wouldn't be an ible. And able never wanted to be an ible anyway...so there you are!
Are you uncomfortable? = Are circumstances such that you experience discomfort?
Are you unmiserable? = Are circumstances such that you experience dismisery?
"Language does not rise from the minds of men. Language is much more important that logic, and so is driven by the caprice of feminine whim." -Preston Richards 1954.
...er, why do I feel uncomfortable with this post?
to all based on the uncorrupted infinitival stems of Latin verbs of the first conjugation...we annex -able only.The Latin verb is
dirigere, to direct. This is not first conjugation.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/61/D0246100.html
From the Oxford Dictionary: Such as to obviate hardship, save trouble and promote content, ministering to comfort; at ease free from hardship, pain, and trouble; enjoying comfort, having ample money for one's needs, having an easy conscience
Vixy--welcome back, Sweetie.
From the Oxford Dictionary: Which one?
Hi! It's good to be back.
Unbelievable!
I suppose unstable denotes the unlikelyhood of getten a sainthood.
GT
That makes sense, of course. A dirigible is a steerable (directable) airship as opposed to a blimp or "balloon" which is at the whim and mercy of the prevailing air currents. And a dirigible is, of course, a second conjugation balloon, isn't it?
Vegetable. There's one whose original meaning has changed. Originally, "To quicken, or grow;" now, if we are vegetables, we are without movement. There, chew on that for while! Why do I see the cartoonist John Callahan doing a cartoon showing a quadraplegic missionary being served to a cannibal's child with the words, "Now, Junior, eat your vegetables?" (Very sick joke-E)
A dirigible is a steerable (directable) airship as opposed to a blimp or "balloon"Interesting. We USns use "blimp" to mean a [steerable] dirigible, rather than a [non-steerable] balloon.
Under bartleby,
http://www.bartleby.com/61/33/B0323300.html, as I read it, a "blimp" can be either steerable or non-steerable.
Well, perhaps, although the blimps you're talking about are in actual fact dirigibles. Because they
are steerable. Blimps, in theory aren't. I guess "the Goodyear Blimp" sounds better than "the Goodyear Dirigible".
I suppose it would even be possible to steer a hot-air balloon if you put the appropriate-sized motive power on it, sorting things out by main force rather than common sense. I mean, the McDonnell-Douglas F4 Phantom was once described as an example of how, if you put big enough engines on it, you can get a housebrick to fly ...