search

MichaelChirico / r-bugs

A ⚠️read-only⚠️mirror of https://bugs.r-project.org/
20 stars 0 forks source link

[BUGZILLA #6570] Spelling #2028

Closed MichaelChirico closed 4 years ago

MichaelChirico commented 4 years ago

From: Peter Dalgaard <p.dalgaard@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::>>

I came across this in connection with an unrelated issue

beta[2]

Error in beta[2] : object is not subsettable

beta[2] <- 5

Error in "[<-"(*tmp*, 2, value = 5) : object is not subsetable

One of the messages must be wrong, but I need a native English speaker to tell me which one.

-- O_ ---- Peter Dalgaard Blegdamsvej 3
c/ /' --- Dept. of Biostatistics 2200 Cph. N
<CENSORING FROM DETECTED PHONE NUMBER ONWARDS; SEE BUGZILLA>

METADATA

MichaelChirico commented 4 years ago

From: Marc Schwartz <MSchwartz@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::>> On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 18:13, p.dalgaard@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::> wrote:

I came across this in connection with an unrelated issue

> beta[2]
Error in beta[2] : object is not subsettable
> beta[2] <- 5
Error in "[<-"(`*tmp*`, 2, value = 5) : object is not subsetable

One of the messages must be wrong, but I need a native English speaker
to tell me which one.

Peter,

To be clear, I presume that you are referring to either the single or double 't' in the words 'subsettable' and 'subsetable'.

Note also that in R-lang.pdf, the following also exists:

10.4.3 Index constructions ... The object can formally be any valid expression, but it is understood to denote or evaluate to a subsetable object. ...

A Google search suggests that both spellings are in use, though a quick review would suggest that the double 't' is more common.

For example:

at http://www4.ncsu.edu/~sgarg/l2h/node7.html, the following:

"Modularization and Subsetable systems"

Then of course, Omegahat has this:

http://www.omegahat.org/api/org/omegahat/Environment/DataStructures/Subsettable.html

Curiously, I have not been able to find either spelling in any "mainstream" english language dictionary (ie. Oxford, Cambridge, Websters).

I could not find 'subsetting' in any dictionary either, though that word with a double 't' also appears frequently in many technical references, including ?"[":

"You can write methods to handle subsetting of specific classes of objects..."

If you want my vote (FWIW), I would go with the double 't'. Keep in mind that while I now live in Minnesota, I was born in Brooklyn, New York. That may bias your opinion as to whether or not I am a native English speaker... ;-)

I will of course defer to any English majors who may be reading this.

HTH,

Marc Schwartz

METADATA

MichaelChirico commented 4 years ago

From: "Roger D. Peng" <rpeng@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::>> Unfortunately, with English it's conceivable that they're both correct. But the double 't' sounds/looks more correct to me. Of course, this is coming from a native English speaker who is generally unfamiliar with the rules of English.

On the other hand:

test --> testable? arrest --> arrestable? contest --> contestable? detest --> detestable? ...

So maybe the single 't' is correct. Did that clear things up?

-roger

p.dalgaard@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::> wrote:

I came across this in connection with an unrelated issue

>beta[2]

Error in beta[2] : object is not subsettable

>beta[2] <- 5

Error in "[<-"(`*tmp*`, 2, value = 5) : object is not subsetable

One of the messages must be wrong, but I need a native English speaker
to tell me which one.

METADATA

MichaelChirico commented 4 years ago

From: Deepayan Sarkar <deepayan@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::>> On Tuesday 10 February 2004 20:25, Roger D. Peng wrote:

Unfortunately, with English it's conceivable that they're both
correct.  But the double 't' sounds/looks *more* correct to me.
Of course, this is coming from a native English speaker who is
generally unfamiliar with the rules of English.

On the other hand:

test --> testable?
arrest --> arrestable?
contest --> contestable?
detest --> detestable?
...

So maybe the single 't' is correct.  Did that clear things up?

This is probably not a valid comparison, since test->testing whereas set->setting.

Oxford (OED) lists the word 'settable' but not 'setable'. subsettable (or subsetable) is obviously an artificial word (we use subset as a verb), but presumably invented derivatives of 'subset' should behave in a manner similar to those of 'set'.

Deepayan


-roger

p.dalgaard@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::> wrote:
> I came across this in connection with an unrelated issue
>
>>beta[2]
>
> Error in beta[2] : object is not subsettable
>
>>beta[2] <- 5
>
> Error in "[<-"(`*tmp*`, 2, value = 5) : object is not subsetable
>
> One of the messages must be wrong, but I need a native English speaker
> to tell me which one.

______________________________________________
R-devel@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::> mailing list
https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

METADATA

MichaelChirico commented 4 years ago

From: Marc Schwartz <MSchwartz@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::>> On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 21:14, Deepayan Sarkar wrote: 

On Tuesday 10 February 2004 20:25, Roger D. Peng wrote:
> Unfortunately, with English it's conceivable that they're both
> correct.  But the double 't' sounds/looks *more* correct to me.
> Of course, this is coming from a native English speaker who is
> generally unfamiliar with the rules of English.
>
> On the other hand:
>
> test --> testable?
> arrest --> arrestable?
> contest --> contestable?
> detest --> detestable?
> ...
>
> So maybe the single 't' is correct.  Did that clear things up?

This is probably not a valid comparison, since test->testing whereas 
set->setting. 

Oxford (OED) lists the word 'settable' but not 'setable'. subsettable (or 
subsetable) is obviously an artificial word (we use subset as a verb), but 
presumably invented derivatives of 'subset' should behave in a manner similar 
to those of 'set'.

Deepayan

OK...wait a minute. I just found the following at:

http://grammar.uoregon.edu/spelling1.html

[Go Ducks!]

To Wit:

DOUBLING A FINAL CONSONANT WHEN ADDING A SUFFIX: from "Correct Spelling Made Easy" (p. 69)

1) The word must end in just one consonant.

Compel (l + ed or ing) = Compelled; Compelling

But Not : Resist (+ ed or ing) = Resisted; Resisting

2) There must be only one vowel before the final single consonant.

Refer (r + ed or ing) = Referred; Referring

But Not: Appear = Appeared; Appearing

3) The last syllable of the verb must receive the accent.

Commit (accent on mit) = Committed; Committing

But Not: Profit = Profited; Profiting

4) The suffix to be added must start with a vowel--in order to double the final consonant.

Defer (r + ed) = Deferred

But Not: Defer + ment) Deferment

So, if these rules are correct, it should be "subsetable", as 'subset' meets 1, 2 and 4, but fails 3, as the accented syllable according to various dictionaries is 'sub' and not 'set'.

Is it too late to change my vote?

Thus, 'testing' fails due to rule 1 ('st'), whereas it is 'setting' due to 'et'.

HTH,

Marc

<I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming of...well...programming...>

METADATA

MichaelChirico commented 4 years ago

From: "Latchezar Dimitrov" <ldimitro@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::>> Oxford English Dictionary (online)

Subset, v.

trans. To underlet, sublet.

1681 STAIR Inst. Law Scot. I. xiii. 253 As the half may be sub-sett, so any other right less then the value of the half, is sustained as an Infeftment of warrandice. 1752 Scots Mag. Nov. 551/2 A small farm.., which he had subset at about 6 l. Sterling per annum. 1801 Farmer's Mag. Nov. 381 A missive of tack,..which made no mention of assignees,..was..found, neither capable of being assigned, nor subset. 1806 SCOTT Fam. Lett. (1894) I. 35, I have subset the whole of the sheep farm. 1838 W. BELL Dict. Law Scot. 582 To assign or subset a lease of the ordinary endurance of nineteen years.

b. absol. or intr.

1801 Farmer's Mag. Nov. 379 A tack of lands does not imply a power, either to assign, or even to subset. 1838 W. BELL Dict. Law Scot. 582 In such leases..an express authority to assign or subset must be given.

Hence subsetting vbl. n.; subsettable a., capable of being subset.

a1722 FOUNTAINHALL Decis. I. 454 The axiom against sub-setting is only against an assignment... But a sub-set is lawful, and was so found 12 March 1686. 1765-8 ERSKINE Inst. Law Scot. II. vi. §33 (1773) 265 It remains a doubt, whether the power of subsetting is implied in the nature of a tack, without a special clause. Ibid., By a subset the principal tacksman is not changed. 1801 Farmer's Mag. Nov. 379 All tacks, likewise, that are to subsist for a great length of time, are also assignable, as well as subsettable.

Latchezar Dimitrov

PS. So you better ask non-native English speakers :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: r-devel-bounces@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::> 
[mailto:r-devel-bounces@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::>] On Behalf Of 
MSchwartz@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 10:48 PM
To: r-devel@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::>
Cc: R-bugs@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::>
Subject: Re: [Rd] Spelling (PR#6570)

On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 21:14, Deepayan Sarkar wrote: 
> On Tuesday 10 February 2004 20:25, Roger D. Peng wrote:
> > Unfortunately, with English it's conceivable that they're both 
> > correct.  But the double 't' sounds/looks *more* correct 
to me. Of 
> > course, this is coming from a native English speaker who is 
> > generally unfamiliar with the rules of English.
> >
> > On the other hand:
> >
> > test --> testable?
> > arrest --> arrestable?
> > contest --> contestable?
> > detest --> detestable?
> > ...
> >
> > So maybe the single 't' is correct.  Did that clear things up?
> 
> This is probably not a valid comparison, since test->testing whereas
> set->setting.
> 
> Oxford (OED) lists the word 'settable' but not 'setable'. 
subsettable 
> (or
> subsetable) is obviously an artificial word (we use subset 
as a verb), but 
> presumably invented derivatives of 'subset' should behave 
in a manner similar 
> to those of 'set'.
> 
> Deepayan

OK...wait a minute.  I just found the following at:

http://grammar.uoregon.edu/spelling1.html

[Go Ducks!]

To Wit:

DOUBLING A FINAL CONSONANT WHEN ADDING A SUFFIX: from 
"Correct Spelling Made Easy" (p. 69)

1) The word must end in just one consonant.

Compel (l + ed or ing) = Compelled; Compelling

But Not : Resist (+ ed or ing) = Resisted; Resisting

2) There must be only one vowel before the final single consonant.

Refer (r + ed or ing) = Referred; Referring

But Not: Appear = Appeared; Appearing

3) The last syllable of the verb must receive the accent.

Commit (accent on mit) = Committed; Committing

But Not: Profit = Profited; Profiting

4) The suffix to be added must start with a vowel--in order 
to double the final consonant.

Defer (r + ed) = Deferred

But Not: Defer + ment) Deferment

So, if these rules are correct, it should be "subsetable", as 
'subset' meets 1, 2 and 4, but fails 3, as the accented 
syllable according to various dictionaries is 'sub' and not 'set'.

Is it too late to change my vote?

Thus, 'testing' fails due to rule 1 ('st'), whereas it is 
'setting' due to 'et'.

HTH,

Marc

<I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming 
of...well...programming...>

______________________________________________
R-devel@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::> mailing list 
https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listi> nfo/r-devel

METADATA

MichaelChirico commented 4 years ago

From: Marc Schwartz <MSchwartz@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::>> On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 21:57, Latchezar Dimitrov wrote:

Oxford English Dictionary (online)

Subset, v.

trans. To underlet, sublet.

1681 STAIR Inst. Law Scot. I. xiii. 253 As the half may be sub-sett,
so any other right less then the value of the half, is sustained as an
Infeftment of warrandice. 1752 Scots Mag. Nov. 551/2 A small farm..,
which he had subset at about 6 l. Sterling per annum. 1801 Farmer's
Mag. Nov. 381 A missive of tack,..which made no mention of
assignees,..was..found, neither capable of being assigned, nor subset.
1806 SCOTT Fam. Lett. (1894) I. 35, I have subset the whole of the
sheep farm. 1838 W. BELL Dict. Law Scot. 582 To assign or subset a
lease of the ordinary endurance of nineteen years.

b. absol. or intr.

1801 Farmer's Mag. Nov. 379 A tack of lands does not imply a power,
either to assign, or even to subset. 1838 W. BELL Dict. Law Scot. 582
In such leases..an express authority to assign or subset must be
given.

Hence subsetting vbl. n.; subsettable a., capable of being subset.

a1722 FOUNTAINHALL Decis. I. 454 The axiom against sub-setting is
only against an assignment... But a sub-set is lawful, and was so
found 12 March 1686. 1765-8 ERSKINE Inst. Law Scot. II. vi. §33 (1773)
265 It remains a doubt, whether the power of subsetting is implied in
the nature of a tack, without a special clause. Ibid., By a subset the
principal tacksman is not changed. 1801 Farmer's Mag. Nov. 379 All
tacks, likewise, that are to subsist for a great length of time, are
also assignable, as well as subsettable.

Latchezar Dimitrov

PS. So you better ask non-native English speakers :-)

LOL....

OK....this would make sense then if the aforementioned grammar rules were applied to the root word of 'set' rather than 'subset'. In other words, it would be 'settable' as opposed to 'setable', then add the prefix 'sub'.

If that is the case, then 'set' passes rule '3' regarding the accented syllable, since of course 'set' has only one syllable.

Well...there ya have it...English...as clear as mud.

Marc

METADATA

MichaelChirico commented 4 years ago

From: "Latchezar Dimitrov" <ldimitro@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::>> Admitting the stress goes upon the second syllable of 'subset' is the simplest explanation I believe - Ocam's razor :-)

Cheers, Latchezar

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Schwartz [mailto:MSchwartz@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::>] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 11:38 PM
To: Latchezar Dimitrov
Cc: r-devel@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::>; R-bugs@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::>; Deepayan 
Sarkar; Roger D. Peng; p.dalgaard@<::CENSORED -- SEE ORIGINAL ON BUGZILLA::>; Patrick Burns
Subject: RE: [Rd] Spelling (PR#6570)

On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 21:57, Latchezar Dimitrov wrote:
> Oxford English Dictionary (online)
> 
> Subset, v.
> 
>   trans. To underlet, sublet.
>  
>   1681 STAIR Inst. Law Scot. I. xiii. 253 As the half may 
be sub-sett, 
> so any other right less then the value of the half, is 
sustained as an 
> Infeftment of warrandice. 1752 Scots Mag. Nov. 551/2 A 
small farm.., 
> which he had subset at about 6 l. Sterling per annum. 1801 Farmer's 
> Mag. Nov. 381 A missive of tack,..which made no mention of 
> assignees,..was..found, neither capable of being assigned, 
nor subset. 
> 1806 SCOTT Fam. Lett. (1894) I. 35, I have subset the whole of the 
> sheep farm. 1838 W. BELL Dict. Law Scot. 582 To assign or subset a 
> lease of the ordinary endurance of nineteen years.
>  
> 
>     b. absol. or intr.
>  
>   1801 Farmer's Mag. Nov. 379 A tack of lands does not 
imply a power, 
> either to assign, or even to subset. 1838 W. BELL Dict. Law 
Scot. 582 
> In such leases..an express authority to assign or subset must be 
> given.
>  
> 
>     Hence subsetting vbl. n.; subsettable a., capable of 
being subset.
>  
>   a1722 FOUNTAINHALL Decis. I. 454 The axiom against sub-setting is 
> only against an assignment... But a sub-set is lawful, and was so 
> found 12 March 1686. 1765-8 ERSKINE Inst. Law Scot. II. vi. 
§33 (1773) 
> 265 It remains a doubt, whether the power of subsetting is 
implied in 
> the nature of a tack, without a special clause. Ibid., By a 
subset the 
> principal tacksman is not changed. 1801 Farmer's Mag. Nov. 379 All 
> tacks, likewise, that are to subsist for a great length of 
time, are 
> also assignable, as well as subsettable.
>  
> Latchezar Dimitrov
> 
> PS. So you better ask non-native English speakers :-)

LOL....

OK....this would make sense then if the aforementioned 
grammar rules were applied to the root word of 'set' rather 
than 'subset'. In other words, it would be 'settable' as 
opposed to 'setable', then add the prefix 'sub'.

If that is the case, then 'set' passes rule '3' regarding the 
accented syllable, since of course 'set' has only one syllable.

Well...there ya have it...English...as clear as mud.

Marc

METADATA

MichaelChirico commented 4 years ago

NOTES: "subsettable" committed for R-devel 1.9.0

METADATA

MichaelChirico commented 4 years ago

Audit (from Jitterbug): Mon Feb 16 17:59:44 2004 pd moved from incoming to Documentation Sat Feb 28 09:23:58 2004 maechler changed notes Sat Feb 28 09:23:58 2004 maechler moved from Documentation to Documentation-fixed

METADATA