The ability to do something is often conveyed in English with either the suffix -ible or the suffix -able. In the absence of a dictionary, how does one know which to use?
-able example:
Accessible, not accessable.
-ible examle:
Cleanable, not cleanible.
Thanks.
I don't know the answer to this buy I found the following:
-able | Define -able at Dictionary.comin Eng., -able is used for native words, -ible for words of obvious L. origin.
To make you more confused, there's also the suffix -ble![]()
Just about: YouTube - Police Squad Bust
Well there is, and it's been discussed here before. It has a few exceptions, but most of the time you can take it that when a -Vble word is based on a recognizable verb, use -able; when a -Vble word starts with a morpheme that can't stand alone as a verb, use -ible.
So doable, laughable , manageable, reportable... from do, laugh, manage, reporrt
But legible, horrible, susceptible, possible... because you can'tleg,horr,susceptorposs.
There are quite a few exceptions, mostly -able words: capable, culpable, laudable, malleable... Here, only a knowledge of etymology will help; briefly, they are often words derived from an original Latin -abilis, rather than words that had the suffix '-able' added at a later stage.
But the exceptions are often words that English students won't meet anyway, so it's a fairly useful rule of thumb.
b
There are also exceptions to the rule: when a -Vble word starts with a morpheme that can't stand alone as a verb, use -ible, for example:
accessible, convertible
As BobK said, it's easy with the words that were coined recently. "-ible" is generally a nonproductive suffix in English, so new words take "-able". The problem is with Latin words in which the suffix depends on which conjugation the verb belonged to.
Thanks. I now see the "Similar Threads" links at the bottom of this page. I'll spend some time reading through them.
Thank you!