How to say "Capable of being deactivated"
Psychoconsciousness
With over 10 years of English at school, and 2 years spent in the U.S. on top
of that, I am still occasionally having difficulty in determining the correct
form of some words. And there are cases where dictionaries will not save you.
And the best reference are the native users of the language.
My question is about the word deactivate. I am trying to refer to something as
'capable or able to be deactivated'. How would you go about saying that?
'Deactivable', 'Deactivateable', neither?
Thanks in advance.
Onur
--
Jim Balter [Contractor]
I would say "can be deactivated". There is an ongoing tendency to make the
language more efficient through generalization of the use of prefixes and
suffixes, so "deactivatable" (the terminating 'e' is usually dropped, e.g.,
"debatable") is "trendy" but not (yet) formally accepted.
"capable of being" not only is overly wordy, but it misses the essence
of the meaning of "capable", which is of power and ability. We would say
that a bird is capable of flight, but not that it is capable of being killed.
-- J Q B
Philip Elmer-DeWitt
>Hi everyone.
>Thanks in advance.
>Onur
>--
How about "comes with a handy shut-off switch"?
Alex Johnson
--My question is about the word deactivate. I am trying to refer to
something as
--'capable or able to be deactivated'. How would you go about saying that?
--'Deactivable', 'Deactivateable', neither?
``Temporary''
``It can be stopped.''
``You can turn it off.''
--
Alex Johnson
Washington, DC
al...@access.digex.net
Psychoconsciousness
than insisting on using deactivable (or whatever) seems to be unanimous. I
have to agree with Jim, that the expression "capable of being" is implicative
of some sort of voluntariness.
Onur
--
Onur Yalcin
oya...@iastate.edu
"Un punto in piu`"
Joseph C Fineman
>Hi everyone.
>Thanks in advance.
>Onur
>--
I don't agree with any of the previously posted reponses to this.
"-able" is a productive suffix in English, i.e., you need not ask
anyone's permission to attach it to a verb to create an adjective
meaning "able to be or capable of being or apt to be ...ed". One may
even do this with a verb+preposition, suppressing the preposition;
e.g., people who can be relied on are reliable, houses that can be
lived in are livable, etc. There are also some more irregular but
still legitimate uses of the prefix; see Fowler s.v. -able for a full
discussion.
When the verb ends in -ate (from the Latin participial suffix -atus),
that syllable is usually suppressed (integrate makes integrable,
etc.); but it is kept if there is only one syllable before the -ate
(rotate, rotatable).
So if you want to make an -able adjective from "deactivate", you are
within your rights, and "deactivable" is the regular form. Whether
it is a good idea to do so is another matter. For casual use, one of
the longer forms suggested by the other respondents will sound more
natural. However, the fact that you bother to ask suggests that you
have experienced a repeated need for a formal word -- you are dealing,
let us say, with widgets that fall into two important classes: those
that can & those that cannot be deactivated. If that is so, you have
my blessing, & probably even that of Fowler's shade, if you make your
section headings Deactivable Widgets and Nondeactivable Widgets.
%^)
--
Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
239 Clinton Road (617) 731-9190
Brookline, MA 02146
Kenneth Kasajian
>>With over 10 years of English at school, and 2 years spent in the U.S. on top
>>of that, I am still occasionally having difficulty in determining the correct
>>form of some words. And there are cases where dictionaries will not save you.
>>And the best reference are the native users of the language.
>>My question is about the word deactivate. I am trying to refer to something as
>>'capable or able to be deactivated'. How would you go about saying that?
>>'Deactivable', 'Deactivateable', neither?
>>Thanks in advance.
You can say "deactivateble" but you should really say
"capable of being deactivated".
Raphael Mankin
>In article <C7vq4...@news.iastate.edu> oya...@iastate.edu
>>'Deactivable', 'Deactivateable', neither?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I would say "can be deactivated". There is an ongoing tendency to make the
>language more efficient through generalization of the use of prefixes and
>suffixes, so "deactivatable" (the terminating 'e' is usually dropped, e.g.,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>"debatable") is "trendy" but not (yet) formally accepted.
>
While Fowler's MEU under 'Mute E' reccomends that the mute 'e' should always be
dropped before a suffix beginning with a vowel, it is becoming very common
to retain it, e.g. mileage/milage, moveable/movable. A similar thing is
happening to words ending in -er when they take a suffix beginning with a vowel,
e.g. parameter/parametrise/parameterise. I suppose it is part of a general
trend to reduce even further the inflection of English words.
--
Raphael Mankin Nil taurus excretum