Re: [PATCH] Fix overridable written with an extra 'e'
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Aug 28, 2009, 15:31 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.DEB.1.00.0908281730510.7434@intel-tinevez-2-302>
- In-Reply-To
- <32541b130908280815y78f95140re679c336fbd17443@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Avery Pennarun wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Junio C Hamano<gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > > Hmph, I don't know. Googling "overrideable" suggests "Did you mean > > overridable?" which is enough clue for me. > > Using a similar system, the Google hit count: > > overrideable: 26,900 > overridable: 339,000 > overridden: 2,280,000
But of course, "overidable" means "able to be overridden", not "overridden".
Show 10 quoted lines
> Which agrees with my intuition that you can get away with overridable, > but it's much more common to just use overridden. > > "override" of course comes from "ride" (181,000,000). A horse can be > ridden (10,500,000) if it's ridable (82,500). > > The bad news: rideable (201,000). > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ridable shows rideable as > the preferred spelling, but accepts both.
Actually, I do not trust the bda speling of the many internet content providers as much as Merriam Webster, so of all your analysis, I find this the most important finding.
Ciao, Dscho