Appearence or Appearance?
Merciadri Luca
Google gives me same meaning for `appearence' and `appearance.' I
always used the first one, i.e. the one with an `e.' Any clue?
`This is only an appearence.'
Thanks.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
"Appearance" with an 'a' is the correct spelling.
"Appearence" with an 'e' is incorrect but would be understood.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Merciadri Luca
wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 08:02:18 -0800 (PST), Merciadri Luca
>
> >Hi,
>
> >Google gives me same meaning for `appearence' and `appearance.' I
> >always used the first one, i.e. the one with an `e.' Any clue?
>
> >`This is only an appearence.'
>
> >Thanks.
>
> "Appearance" with an 'a' is the correct spelling.
>
> "Appearence" with an 'e' is incorrect but would be understood.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 08:02:18 -0800 (PST), Merciadri Luca
><mercia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Google gives me same meaning for `appearence' and `appearance.' I
>>always used the first one, i.e. the one with an `e.' Any clue?
>>
>>`This is only an appearence.'
>>
>>Thanks.
>
>"Appearance" with an 'a' is the correct spelling.
>
>"Appearence" with an 'e' is incorrect but would be understood.
A useful place to check meanings and spelling is:
http://www.onelook.com/
For "appearance" it lists links to 51 online dictionaries:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=appearance&ls=a
For "appearence" it gives a link to just one online dictionary:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=appearence&ls=a
which says:
http://www.wordnik.com/words/appearence
No definitions are available for "appearence".
it then gives 82 examples in which that spelling is used.
"Appearence" seems to be a fairly frequent misspelling of "appearance".
Athel Cornish-Bowden
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> said:
I believe you, but I don't remember seeing it before.
--
athel
Merciadri Luca
wrote:
> I believe you, but I don't remember seeing it before.
Thanks all. Well, that might be because you only read correctly-
spelled documents. :-)
HVS
This reminds me - I've always had a problem distinguishing the
legitimate -ence/-ance forms like dependa(e)nt responda(e)nt.
Is there an obvious usage rule/consistency that I'm missing?
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:21:30 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:14:04 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> "Appearence" seems to be a fairly frequent misspelling of
>"appearance".
>
>This reminds me - I've always had a problem distinguishing the
>legitimate -ence/-ance forms like dependa(e)nt responda(e)nt.
>
>Is there an obvious usage rule/consistency that I'm missing?
OED:
-ant 1, suffix
..... Most of them retain -ant, e.g. claimant, pleasant,
poursuivant, servant, suppliant, valiant; but since 1500 some have
been refashioned with -ent after L., wholly (as apparaunt, -ent), or
partly (as in pendant, -ent, dependant, -ent, ascendant, -ent).
Hence, inconsistency and uncertainty in the present spelling of many
words, in which L. and Fr. analogies are at variance: see -ENT. Many
new words of this class have been adopted from L. -{amac}ntem
directly or through later Fr., or have been formed on L. analogies,
or adopted from mod.Fr. and Romance -ant, -ante; as concomitant,
protestant, commandant, anæsthesiant. For sense, see -ENT.
-ent, suffix
..... The Fr. words in -ant, -ent, which were adopted into Eng.,
have generally retained the form of the suffix which they had in
Fr.; but since 1500 there has been a tendency to refashion them
after Lat., and hence several words in -ant have changed that ending
for -ent, either entirely or in certain senses. In mod.Eng. also
many Lat. words in -entem have been directly adopted, always in the
form -ent. The conflict between Eng. and Fr. analogies occasions
frequent inconsistency and uncertainty in the present spelling of
words with this suffix; cf. e.g. assistant, persistent; attendant,
superintendent; dependant, -ent, independent.
2. In sense the words in -ent, -ant are primarily adjs., sometimes
distinctly ppl., as convergent, obsolescent, errant, peccant; some,
however, are, like many words of the same type in Lat. and Fr., used
as ns. (either in addition to the adj. use or exclusively), meaning
(a) a personal agent, as agent, claimant, president, regent; (b) a
material agent, as coefficient, current, ingredient, secant,
tangent, torrent; esp. in Medicine, as aperient, astringent,
emollient, expectorant.
There is no rule.
Mark Brader
> This reminds me - I've always had a problem distinguishing the
> legitimate -ence/-ance forms like dependa(e)nt responda(e)nt.
>
> Is there an obvious usage rule/consistency that I'm missing?
It's simple. "Dependant" is a noun in British spelling. "Dependent"
is American spelling and/or an adjective.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is.
m...@vex.net | -- Bill Clinton
franzi
It ought to go back to Latin (as so often), but that's not always
reliable.
On dependency: there's the Latin verb pendere, to hang, which implies
the 'e', but for some reason 'dependant' was formerly the principal
spelling in BrE for the noun. In the adjective, 'dependent' always
prevails, and the noun has now gone the same way. Most derivatives still
use the 'e' root, not deigning to show their independence.
Latin is your first port of call, if you do want guidance.
(Since I drafted that reply, but before posting, Peter Duncanson posted
to the effect that I'm less than correct. Maybe, but I like Latin. It's
my security blanket.)
--
franzi