equipable or equippable?

I tried looking it up in a, god forbid, real dictionary [wink].
Looks like its one of those words that is only really used within RPGs (i.e. doesn't really exist outside of gaming... correct me if I'm wrong) and since most of them use 'equipable' i'd say you are safe with that bad boy.

I think 'equipable' looks best.

If you are <font color="#00ff00">able</font> to <font color="#ff0000">equip</font> an item             <font color="#00ff00">|</font>      <font color="#ff0000">|</font>         <font color="#ff0000">------------</font>         <font color="#ff0000">|</font>   <font color="#00ff00">|</font>it is <font color="#ff0000">equip</font><font color="#00ff00">able</font>.

Quote:

Original post by Lode I tried dictionary.com but it has neither words.

Be warned that that is a US English dictionary, which will potentially have different spellings to 'International' English. You can use the Cambridge dictionary online for free (unlike Oxford), which will list US variations along with the English spelling (flagged as UK).

I have never heard of the word, in any case.

Quote:

Original post by Enselic I think 'equipable' looks best. If you are <font color="#00ff00">able</font> to <font color="#ff0000">equip</font> an item <font color="#00ff00">|</font> <font color="#ff0000">|</font> <font color="#ff0000">------------</font> <font color="#ff0000">|</font> <font color="#00ff00">|</font>it is <font color="#ff0000">equip</font><font color="#00ff00">able</font>.

woo, colours...

Yea, i'd go with equipable

It's like, a sword is equipable because you can equip it and get the stats from it, while an apple isn't equipable, it's edible though. Typical for RPGs, yeah, in real life you don't call clothes or swords "equipable" :D

The rule of thumb is to double the ending consonant when adding suffixes (the suffix is "-able" in this case) unless it's already doubled. More precisely:

Quote:

If the word is one syllable or is stressed on the last syllable, -- and has a single final consonant, -- and that single final consonant is preceded by a single vowel sound, -- and the suffix begins with a vowel, -- then double the final consonant.

Thus:
-- control becomes controllable (not "controlable");
-- run becomes runnable (not "runable");
-- swim becomes swimmable (not "swimable");

but:
-- pass becomes passable (not "passsable");
-- climb becomes climbable (not "climbbable");

Since "equip" is two syllables, has the stress on the second syllable, ends with a single final consonant, is preceded by a single vowel sound, and the suffix begins with a vowel, then we should double the final consonant:

-- equip becomes equippable (not "equipable").

A big hint is to note that other suffixes (e.g., "-ed" and "-ing") are spelled with the doubled final consonant ("equipped" and "equipping"). Additionally, if you type "equipable" into Google, it'll ask you if you meant "equippable".

hope that helps,

[Edited by - kSquared on July 13, 2006 11:30:25 AM]

Nice explanation, although I didn't really get the single vowel sound thing (ui being two vowels)

Quote:

Original post by kSquared A big hint is to note that other suffixes (e.g., "-ed" and "-ing") are spelled with the doubled final consonant ("equipped" and "equipping"). Additionally, if you type "equipable" into Google, it'll ask you if you meant "equippable".

Heh, then your google has another spell checker than mine, when I type equipable or equippable in google, in both cases it asks if I meant "equitable"

Quote:

Original post by Lode Nice explanation, although I didn't really get the single vowel sound thing (ui being two vowels)

A vowel is different from a vowel sound. In English, a vowel is one of the letters {a, e, i, o, u, y}, depending on context (sometimes other letters can be vowels too). However, a vowel sound has no bearing on how many vowel letters comprise it: it's a sound represented by the combinations of those letters.

For instance, the "ui" in "equip" is pronounced like "ih", exactly like the "i" in "pit". Both constitute one and the same vowel sound, even though "ui" is two vowels and "i" is one vowel.

A diphthong is more than two or more smoothly connected vowel sounds, irrespective of the number of actual vowel letters. "House" is a diphthong; you transition from an "o" sound to a "u" sound, and "ou" is two vowels. But "kite" is also a diphthong; you start out saying "ka" and end up saying "ite", so you transition from "a" to "i", yet there's only one vowel.

hope that helps,

Quote:

Original post by kSquared [...]But "kite" is also a diphthong; you start out saying "ka" and end up saying "ite", so you transition from "a" to "i", yet there's only one vowel.[...]

Do you pronounce 'kite' significantly different than the example at Kite on M-W(click the red speaker icon to hear it), are you saying that "ka" is intrinsic to the letter 'k', or something else?

Quote:

Original post by Extrarius Quote: Original post by kSquared [...]But "kite" is also a diphthong; you start out saying "ka" and end up saying "ite", so you transition from "a" to "i", yet there's only one vowel.[...] Do you pronounce 'kite' significantly different than the example at Kite on M-W(click the red speaker icon to hear it), are you saying that "ka" is intrinsic to the letter 'k', or something else?

I'm saying that the "i" in kite is two vowel sounds: "ah" and "eye" together. The "sliding" that's required to transition between the two is what creates the diphthong.

Quote:

Original post by kSquared I'm saying that the "i" in kite is two vowel sounds: "ah" and "eye" together. The "sliding" that's required to transition between the two is what creates the diphthong.

I pronounce "kite" like "might" with a 'k'. Is this not standard? Or is "might" a diphthong as well? It doesn't seem like it.

Quote:

Original post by Frequency Quote: Original post by kSquared I'm saying that the "i" in kite is two vowel sounds: "ah" and "eye" together. The "sliding" that's required to transition between the two is what creates the diphthong. I pronounce "kite" like "might" with a 'k'. Is this not standard? Or is "might" a diphthong as well? It doesn't seem like it.

I pronounce might like "maaight" so yes it's a diphthong

Quote:

Original post by kSquared [...]I'm saying that the "i" in kite is two vowel sounds: "ah" and "eye" together. The "sliding" that's required to transition between the two is what creates the diphthong.

I notice no 'ah'-like sound when I say 'kite', nor do I hear such a sound in the recording on the page I linked to. Do you hear an 'ah' sound in the linked-to recording?
For me, words ending in "-ite" and "-ight" are all pronounced similarly, and I hear nither "a" nor "ah" blended with the "i" in any of them (that I can think of).

I was just wondering in what context are you going to be using the word "equipable" (or equippable).

Maybe you could use another term, such as "this item is able to be equipped" or "to be worn" or "wearable" (or is that wearrable? :)).

A diphthong is considered a single vowel sound for the purpose of the rule, so it's not really relevant. Also, the ui in quip is a diphthong (transitions quickly between the oo sound and the ih sound). It's very unusual to have two adjacent vowel sounds in English; I can't think of any, but there probably are some that were borrowed from other languages.

Technically, the 'u' in 'equip' isn't a vowel, but is part of the 'qu' grapheme, which represents a voiceless velar plosive followed by a bilabial glide; in English, glides are generally considered consonants, even though they are derived from vowels.

You won't find 'equippable' in most dictonaries, because it's a regular derivation from 'equip', and dictionaries generally don't have seperate entries for regular derivations.

Incidentally, consonant doubling ('gemination') is a side effect of the fact that English has 5 letters with which to represent 14-15 vowel phonemes. 10 of the vowel phonemes form a set of 5 pairs, with one of each pair being a 'long' vowel and the other being a 'short' vowel. (Before the Great Vowel Shift, long vowels were pronounced the same as their corresponding short vowel, with the two differing solely in terms of length.) In English orthography, a front vowel ('i' or 'e') has the effect of lengthening the previous vowel, iff it is a stressed simple vowel ('a', 'e', 'i', 'o', and 'u') and the two vowels are seperated by exactly one consonant. Because the graphemes for the two most common suffixes in English ('-ed' and '-ing') both begin with front vowels, some method was needed to prevent them from appearing to lengthen the prior vowel; the solution was doubling the final consonant if there was only one and the last vowel was a stressed simple one. (Such a change was not needed for unstressed vowels, becase in English they are always reduced more-or-less to schwas.) This later became generalised to apply to all regular vowel-initial suffixes, as English has relatively few that don't begin with a front vowel ('-able' and '-or' are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head).

A side effect of this, of course, is that English lacks any regular way to indicate long vowels followed by consonant clusters or consonants that can only be represented by digraphs ('th', 'sh', 'ng', etc.), and has to resort to several wonky workarounds in those situations.

Quote:

Original post by Extrarius I notice no 'ah'-like sound when I say 'kite', nor do I hear such a sound in the recording on the page I linked to. Do you hear an 'ah' sound in the linked-to recording? For me, words ending in "-ite" and "-ight" are all pronounced similarly, and I hear nither "a" nor "ah" blended with the "i" in any of them (that I can think of).

In most dialects of English, the 'ah' part of the long-'i' diphthong tends to be reduced towards schwa or short-'u' in varying degrees; in some dialects it may even be reduced back down to a monophthong. (The long-'i' was originally, after all, a monophthong sounding like the vowel in 'beat'.)

I vote for equippable. It looks better, feels better, and follows more with convention!

Quote:

Original post by Flarelocke A diphthong is considered a single vowel sound for the purpose of the rule, so it's not really relevant. Also, the ui in quip is a diphthong (transitions quickly between the oo sound and the ih sound). It's very unusual to have two adjacent vowel sounds in English; I can't think of any, but there probably are some that were borrowed from other languages.

Spanish is certainly big on them. ae, ea, ou, uo, and all the others run rampant.