It's not the end of the world but it does bug me every time I meet it:

the word is spelt 'writable' - only one ee in there. Not writeable. For example, as used in



EDIT by DOS386: enhanced subject

Gaidheal,

writable equ writeable might make it work as you wish. Do you have link to prove you're correct in the spelling?

No need to do it - fasm allows both "writable" and "writeable" forms.

Tomasz Grysztar,

How about fasm v2 whitepapers then?

----8<----
ouadji,

That's look like "color" vs. "colour" question.

Ah, didn't realize it allowed both; never thought to check! LOL

As for the dictionary fans, try the OED but remember that dictionaries don't 'prove you are right' they are descriptive and not prescriptive.

Writable is correct but at some point in the 80s the version with the e started to be used in computer documentation by non-native speakers and it seems to have turned up in various places from that.

Compare that it would otherwise be 'executEable' and so on. English drops final ee, where it is not pronounced but merely marks lengthened vowels before the consonant, when adding suffixes.

Anyway, since it permits either, all is good. :¬)

P.S. Writeable isn't more common, being unknown, near enough outside computer usages and even Google attempts to correct a search on it to the proper spelling.

Aye, ever since I discovered it, it's been the only assembler I've wanted to use. I occasionally have to make use of others for the convenience of not translating someone elses code, on the fly, to Fasm style, but I'd never write my own code on anything else if I could help it.

P.S. Oops! I realize I totally misread your earlier comment! Teach me to 'speed read', hehe!

Oh cool, a dictionary topic.

<revolution's dictionary rant follows>

English does not have any correct or incorrect words. More accurately, English is just a collection of whatever the users make it. That means that if some culture somewhere starts using a particular word and/or spelling and it becomes wide spread then that word and/or spelling enters than language as English.

Many dictionaries are indeed descriptive, so when they list words like 'writeable' what does that tell you? It should tell you that enough people are using it to make it a word in the English language. How else can we judge what is "correct" and what is not? It might not be traditional, normal or usual, but that does not make it wrong, merely different. There is no such thing as the reference book of English. It does not, and cannot, exist, because English is constantly changing. New words enter the language, old words leave, some words change meaning, some words change spelling. Such is the way of English - a messy collection of words from all over the world, and no one has the basis to tell you that something is wrong, or right.

I doth think I have speaked enuf on this topik for now.

<rant ends here, thanks for reading>

Rant would have been more impressive with a better target and some content ;¬)

There are indeed "correct" spellings because we do have some 'de facto' standards for English, set by the very usage you're making your comment on.

Languages are for communication and that only works when the other person understands what you intended, which is why we do actually have accepted spellings (even if they are often a bit weird and very out of step with current pronunciation). I'm actually very well informed (and could go on at length on the topic) about the history of English and English spelling, why it is the way it is and the way fashions have caused different spellings to pass in and out of popular usage.

Also, all languages have rules (grammar) that are very well understood by native speakers (often they cannot articulate them if put on the spot but they always know them), for example, in English there is a very a definite rule about adjective order but very rarely will you see it explicitly taught:



is wrong. Any native speaker can instantly tell you this but very few can put their finger on the precise rule, they just know that it has to be:



Anyway, writable is 'correct', like it or not. Writeable may also be in common usage but my original complaint was that Fasm should definitely accept the correct spelling, as it turns out, it did! Silly me, I never tested it but the very fact that I come across code that regularly uses 'writeable' attests to the fact that it exists. It's 'wrong' in a sense but obviously well used in our field, such is language.

Hehe, 'de facto' standards are illusory and temporary. They change as time progresses. And for your point about "Languages are for communication and that only works when the other person understands" I could not agree more. And I expect that you fully understood what writeable means also, so it was not wrong to use it as the meaning was clear.

But your digression into grammar is out of scope of the individual words and spelling thereof.

How about this: I challenge you to show that writeable is wrong.

Yeah, I know this is an unfair challenge because it is not possible to show a negative. But I only did this to prove a point that you cannot say something is definitely wrong because there will always be someone else that says it is right. And no one opinion can nullify another's opinion. Both opinions are valid.

BTW: The original topic has well and truly been answered so this shift in dictionaries should cause no problem for on-topic purists. Hehe.

What if there are several genus of dragons, say Great Dragons, Dwarf Dragons and Green Dragons. Say Great Dragons come in different colors, one of which is green. Now why wouldn't "green great dragon" be correct.

I vote to make writeable the standard, seems better than writ~able. Might as well include "useable" in there as well.

Alphonso,

Just don't extend that with "probeable".

lol.

Yes, if we had a probe and something that was suitable to be probed then by above definition of dropping the 'e' it would be probable.

Internal vocalisation gives me:
Writable - writ (bit)
Writeable - write (byte)

Anyway, 'writable' looks weird.

Gaidheal,

What is a "spelt"?





farrier

"Spelt" would be the correct simple past of the verb 'to spell'. ;¬)

Aye, really. :¬)

Gaidheal,



It's correct where you come from, I read a lot from many sources and don't recall seeing it recently as a past form of "to spell". Oddly enough, I was visiting my Mother today and she was reading a magazine loaded with recipes. One of the recipes called for spelt flour! I had a "The gods are laughing at me" moment, for mentioning it to you.

My point was: I knew exactly what you were saying, just pointing out what is uncomfortable to your eyes--writeable--never occurred to me, but spelt jumped out at me. I have for 50 years used the word thru instead of through. Everyone who sees it knows what it represents, and non-English speakers can be sure how to pronounce it. But it bothers many people to see through spelled that way, but if English was not your language, it would be obvious how to pronounce it.

The spell checker for this editor does not like "writeable"!!!

WADR,

farrier

I was being mildly facetious, hence the smilies. A quick Google (as you doubtless know) will tell you why you don't see it, as you obviously read American material where spelled is strongly preferred. Just about every other English-speaking nation is the other way but as with all things, this is subject to change and varies from area to area and speaker to speaker. Scots (I'm one) will pretty much always strongly prefer this form and similar.

Gaidheal,

From a clever Irishman:

GBS



farrier