Transfered vs Transferred, etc.

[j...@mdfs.net]

Why is the past tense/gerund of transfer spelled transferred/transferring and
why do I keep trying to spell it transfered/transfering? Similarly, why do I
keep trying to spell targetted as targetted? Is there a pondian difference
that my computer spellchecker doesn't know about, but I subconsciously do?

jgh

[Guy Barry]

j...@mdfs.net wrote in message
news:ccd4d4af-1a82-4dd7...@googlegroups.com...

>Why is the past tense/gerund of transfer spelled transferred/transferring

If the base form ends in a single consonant preceded by a single vowel, the
usual rule is to double the consonant when the main stress is on the final
syllable of the verb, but not otherwise:

http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxdoubli.html

>and why do I keep trying to spell it transfered/transfering?

Possibly under the influence of "offered", where the stress falls on the
first syllable? There's an anomaly concerning the spelling of
"transferable"; one might expect it to double the "r" like "transferred",
but traditionally the word was pronounced with the stress on the first
syllable (like "preferable"), and so a single "r" was retained. None the
less, many people nowadays stress the word on the second syllable,
suggesting that the spelling should really be "transferrable".

>Similarly, why do I keep trying to spell targetted as targetted?

The main stress of "target" is on the first syllable, so by the usual rule
the past tense should be "targeted". However "targetted" seems to be
increasingly common.

>Is there a pondian difference that my computer spellchecker doesn't know
>about, but I subconsciously do?

Not for the words you've mentioned as far as I know. The pondian difference
occurs mainly with base forms ending in "l", where AmE sticks with the usual
rule but BrE always doubles irrespective of stress (e.g. AmE "traveled" vs
BrE "travelled"); also a few other verbs like "worship".

There have been a number of threads on this topic, and I should warn you
that it's not always as clear-cut as I've suggested above. But I think the
general guidance is sound.

--
Guy Barry

[Jerry Friedman]

On Friday, October 17, 2014 1:15:19 AM UTC-6, Guy Barry wrote:
> j...@mdfs.net wrote in message
> news:ccd4d4af-1a82-4dd7...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >Why is the past tense/gerund of transfer spelled transferred/transferring
>
> If the base form ends in a single consonant preceded by a single vowel, the
> usual rule is to double the consonant when the main stress is on the final
> syllable of the verb, but not otherwise:
>
> http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxdoubli.html
>
> >and why do I keep trying to spell it transfered/transfering?
>
> Possibly under the influence of "offered", where the stress falls on the
> first syllable?

Does this mean that "transfer" is accented on the second syllable in
British English? I had no idea, but the OED confirms it. With all
the obvious American pronunciations they add, they should really add
this one that's not so obvious.

American dictionaries show a second-syllable accent first, but that
would sound strange to me.

> There's an anomaly concerning the spelling of
> "transferable"; one might expect it to double the "r" like "transferred",
> but traditionally the word was pronounced with the stress on the first
> syllable (like "preferable"), and so a single "r" was retained. None the
> less, many people nowadays stress the word on the second syllable,
> suggesting that the spelling should really be "transferrable".

"And then turned homeward, meditating much
About the single transferable vote."

--J. C. Squire, "If Wordworth Had Written 'The Everlasting Mercy'"

--
Jerry Friedman

[j...@mdfs.net]

Guy Barry wrote:
> If the base form ends in a single consonant preceded by a single vowel, the
> usual rule is to double the consonant when the main stress is on the final
> syllable of the verb, but not otherwise:

Ah, that could be it. I say TRANSfered, I think I've heard people saying
tranFERred.

> The main stress of "target" is on the first syllable, so by the usual rule
> the past tense should be "targeted". However "targetted" seems to be
> increasingly common.

My Collins Gem doesn't help with target as it only lists it as a noun.

I was tweeking my CV and had spell-check-while-typing turned on and
noticed I was subconsciously "correcting" a few words to what it
claimed were mis-spellings, and I was subconsciously ignoring them
as Americanisms:

... _analysing_ and using data for targetted and untargetted mailings,
_organised_ and mapped optimal delivery rounds ... Windows 7 _rollouts_
... _transfering_ custom and bespoke specialist medical software ...

> The pondian difference occurs mainly with base forms ending in "l" ...

Being a former councillor it always strikes me as very wrong to see
"councilor". I can't even get my tongue around prononcing it!

jgh

[Tom P]

On 17.10.2014 19:56, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Friday, October 17, 2014 1:15:19 AM UTC-6, Guy Barry wrote:
>> j...@mdfs.net wrote in message
>> news:ccd4d4af-1a82-4dd7...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Why is the past tense/gerund of transfer spelled transferred/transferring
>>
>> If the base form ends in a single consonant preceded by a single vowel, the
>> usual rule is to double the consonant when the main stress is on the final
>> syllable of the verb, but not otherwise:
>>
>> http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxdoubli.html
>>
>>> and why do I keep trying to spell it transfered/transfering?
>>
>> Possibly under the influence of "offered", where the stress falls on the
>> first syllable?
>
> Does this mean that "transfer" is accented on the second syllable in
> British English? I had no idea, but the OED confirms it. With all
> the obvious American pronunciations they add, they should really add
> this one that's not so obvious.
>
> American dictionaries show a second-syllable accent first, but that
> would sound strange to me
>

Could it be that there is a difference between the transitive and
intransitive form?

1. I transfered at London Heathrow. (first syllable accentuated)
2. I transferred the money from my checking to my savings account.
(second syllable accentuated)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, October 17, 2014 4:21:32 PM UTC-4, Tom P wrote:

> Could it be that there is a difference between the transitive and
> intransitive form?
> 1. I transfered at London Heathrow. (first syllable accentuated)
> 2. I transferred the money from my checking to my savings account.
> (second syllable accentuated)

Yes. Not sure I'd spell them differently, though.

[Robert Bannister]

I got caught out by "transferrable" only yesterday. I still don't
understand why it doesn't have two Rs.

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[Robert Bannister]

On 18/10/2014 1:56 am, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Friday, October 17, 2014 1:15:19 AM UTC-6, Guy Barry wrote:
>> j...@mdfs.net wrote in message
>> news:ccd4d4af-1a82-4dd7...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Why is the past tense/gerund of transfer spelled transferred/transferring
>>
>> If the base form ends in a single consonant preceded by a single vowel, the
>> usual rule is to double the consonant when the main stress is on the final
>> syllable of the verb, but not otherwise:
>>
>> http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxdoubli.html
>>
>>> and why do I keep trying to spell it transfered/transfering?
>>
>> Possibly under the influence of "offered", where the stress falls on the
>> first syllable?
>
> Does this mean that "transfer" is accented on the second syllable in
> British English? I had no idea, but the OED confirms it. With all
> the obvious American pronunciations they add, they should really add
> this one that's not so obvious.
>
> American dictionaries show a second-syllable accent first, but that
> would sound strange to me.

But it's only the verb that has second-syllable stress. The noun is
stressed on the first.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, October 17, 2014 6:31:11 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister wrote:

> I got caught out by "transferrable" only yesterday. I still don't
> understand why it doesn't have two Rs.

It needs all three.

[Guy Barry]

"Jerry Friedman" wrote in message
news:91b6b8ba-af8b-4f21...@googlegroups.com...

>
>On Friday, October 17, 2014 1:15:19 AM UTC-6, Guy Barry wrote:
>> j...@mdfs.net wrote in message
>> news:ccd4d4af-1a82-4dd7...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >Why is the past tense/gerund of transfer spelled
>> >transferred/transferring
>>
>> If the base form ends in a single consonant preceded by a single vowel,
>> the
>> usual rule is to double the consonant when the main stress is on the
>> final
>> syllable of the verb, but not otherwise:
>>
>> http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxdoubli.html
>>
>> >and why do I keep trying to spell it transfered/transfering?
>>
>> Possibly under the influence of "offered", where the stress falls on the
>> first syllable?
>
>Does this mean that "transfer" is accented on the second syllable in
>British English? I had no idea, but the OED confirms it.

I had no idea that the verb could have anything other than second-syllable
stress. In BrE first-syllable stress is reserved for the noun.

If AmE stresses the verb on the first, then presumably the inflected forms
*should* be spelt "transfered"/"transfering". Do they ever appear that way?

--
Guy Barry

[John Holmes]

"Jerry Friedman" <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:91b6b8ba-af8b-4f21...@googlegroups.com...
>

> Does this mean that "transfer" is accented on the second syllable in
> British English?

Second syllable for the verb; first syllable for the noun.

--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

[Peter T. Daniels]

Tom P gave the precise difference between the two differently-stressed
verbs.

[Joe Fineman]

Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> writes:

> I got caught out by "transferrable" only yesterday. I still don't
> understand why it doesn't have two Rs.

Perhaps those who write "transferable" pronounce it with stress on the
first syllable (cf. "preferable").

AHD gives both "transferable" & "transferrable", in that order -- but
both with stress on the second syllable! I think that's a typo.

OED gives only one spelling ("transferable") and only one stress (on the
first syllable).
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net

||: Bad taste is better than no taste. :||

[Joe Fineman]

"John Holmes" <jh...@tpg.com.au> writes:

> "Jerry Friedman" <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:91b6b8ba-af8b-4f21...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Does this mean that "transfer" is accented on the second syllable in
>> British English?
>
> Second syllable for the verb; first syllable for the noun.

But first syllable for the -able derivative.

--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net

||: Yield to temptation: it may not pass your way again. :||

[R H Draney]

j...@mdfs.net filted:

>
>Being a former councillor it always strikes me as very wrong to see
>"councilor". I can't even get my tongue around prononcing it!

Now you know how we feel about your bizarre spelling of "jewellery", which
should logically have four syllables....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Robert Bannister]

On 19/10/2014 5:44 am, Joe Fineman wrote:
> "John Holmes" <jh...@tpg.com.au> writes:
>
>> "Jerry Friedman" <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:91b6b8ba-af8b-4f21...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Does this mean that "transfer" is accented on the second syllable in
>>> British English?
>>
>> Second syllable for the verb; first syllable for the noun.
>
> But first syllable for the -able derivative.
>

That is quite difficult to say - TRANS gobblegobble.