=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  EDline Vol. 7, no. 34     (5 February 2002)

  Editorial mailing list (digest version)
  Published by the Electric Editors
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  Contents:

         Q & A
  [2rx]  Formating

  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


---[2]-- Q & A --------------------------------------------------


** [2rx] Formating

         Date: Tues, 29 Jan 2002
         From: Michael Fitch, michaelbfitch@supanet.com

There was a time (particularly before I had a PC) when if I came
across 'formatting' in a typescript I would change it to
'formating'.
 
To quote Hart's Rules (which of course is talking about UK
spellings):

Words of more than one syllable
Those that end with one consonant preceded by one vowel double
the consonant on adding -ed, -ing, or -er if the last syllable is
stressed (but not if the consonant is w, x, or y):
e.g.     allot     allotted    allotting

But words of this class not stressed on the last syllable do not
double the last consonant (Exceptions are in- and outputting;
worshipped, -ing, -er; and words ending with l.) on adding -ed,
-ing, -er, or -y unless the consonant is l:
e.g.     ballot    balloted    balloting
 
I would say that 'format' is equally stressed on the 2 syllables,
or if there is any stress it is on the first one. 
Thus:    format    formated    formating
 
Now I have a PC I am constantly seeing 'formatting' on my screen.
Surely it should be possible to recognize this as a US spelling
(like 'dialed', 'colors' and other forms used by Microsoft),
accept it as such when I read it, but not use it myself.
 
But I never see 'formating' anywhere, not on typescripts, not in
books, not in other people's postings, despite its being the
spelling that the rules would seem to dictate. 'Formatting' seems
to have joined 'worshipping' as an exception ('inputting' doesn't
really count, as it's just 'putting' with a prefix). 
 
Have we now reached the stage where 'formatting' is so much used
that 'formating' is 'wrong'? Or is Hart's wrong? Or am I wrong
about where the stress lies?
 

         -----------------------
         Date: Tues, 29 Jan 2002 
         From: Iwan Thomas, iwan@frame.org.uk

Collins, the SOED, and Chambers Concise all give "formatting" as
the only correct spelling. I would read "formating" as "for
mating"!
 

         -----------------------
         Date: Tues, 29 Jan 2002 
         From: John Morris, johnjeff@meadowdance.org

Here in the northeast part of the US, there are plenty of people
who subscribe to some variant of Harts Rule on this. However, in
my part of the world, I think people put slightly more stress on
the second syllable in the inflected forms. (I say FORmat, but I
say forMATting.)

The only difference between my personal rule and Harts rule is
that I don't include a general exception for words ending in L
(e.g. labeling, modeling).


         -----------------------
         Date: Tues, 29 Jan 2002 
         From: David Ibbetson, isserlis@rogers.com

Michael Fitch wrote:

> Have we now reached the stage where 'formatting' is so much
> used that 'formating' is 'wrong'? Or is Hart's wrong? Or am I
> wrong about where the stress lies?

Well I've only been in Canada since 1972, but I'd double the t.

To make life difficult Chambers Dictionary wants -tt- for the present
participle, but -t- for the past tense and past participle


         -----------------------
         Date: Tues, 29 Jan 2002 
         From: Alex Gray, wordworks@gairloch.co.uk

Michael Fitch wrote:

> To quote Hart's Rules (which of course is talking about UK
> spellings):
>
> Words of more than one syllable
> Those that end with one consonant preceded by one vowel double
> the consonant on adding -ed, -ing, or -er if the last syllable
> is stressed (but not if the consonant is w, x, or y):
> ...
> But words of this class not stressed on the last syllable do
> not double the last consonant (Exceptions are in- and
> outputting; worshipped, -ing, -er; and words ending with l.) on
> adding -ed, -ing, -er, or -y unless the consonant is l:>

Always a tricky one - the most common mistake I see in this area
is spelling focused with a double -ss-.

I would make three observations:

1) as with hyphenation, there is an overarching rule that says
that a modified form should not be spelt such that it is likely
to mislead as to pronunciantion (someone unfamiliar with the word
would pronounce 'formating' are for-mating)

2) any rules based on pronunciation are trouble prone, owing to
variations in pronunciation!

3) I think it *is* generally pronounced with a slight stress on
the first syllable - or at least not with a stress on the second
syllable which would be 'for matting'


         ----------------------
         Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 
         From: Anna Beth McCormack, mccormack@goulburn.net.au

As far as I've been able to work out, American usage is the
opposite of Anglo usage re doubling in two-syllable words where
the 2nd syllable has a short vowel. So:

English:
focused, biased, allotted, formatted (rule being to 'double when
the stress is on the 2nd syllable')

BUT levelled ('l' being the exception)

US:
focussed, biassed, alloted, formated

BUT leveled ('l' being the exception again)

Testing: My spellchecker has just decided it doesn't like
'biassed', 'alloted', 'formated' or 'levelled', but it likes both
'focused' and 'focussed', so I guess it's spelling in Aussie
English (i.e. a hybrid) and is hardly worth taking notice of
except to check for typos.

Re 'format' in particular: I would say 'FORMat' but 'formATTed',
so the doubling rule would apply in Anglo English but not
American English. 

Can anyone suggest why 'l' is the exception both times, in
opposite directions? Weird.

But in any case, the purpose of doubling seems to be to indicate
that the vowel is short---an olde English spelling trick---which
is more important to know when the syllable is stressed than when
it isn't. 

I think the American doubling on 'focussed' and 'biassed' makes
me want to shift the stress to the 2nd syllable and say
'foCUSSed' and biASSed'; and not doubling on 'alloted' and
'formating' makes me want to lengthen the vowel and say
'allOHted' and 'forMAITed'. 


         ----------------------
         Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 
         From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu

You consider "focussed" and "biassed" to be American spellings?
Even though U.S. dictionaries give the double-s forms as
possibilities, I can't say I've seen "focussed" more than a
handful of times in works written by Americans; I've never seen
"biassed." I've always considered "focussed" to be British--and
the OED agrees: "in the U.K. commonly, but irregularly, written
focussed." (Of "biassed" the OED says, "In inflexions, often
spelt biasses, biassed, biassing; though the single s is more
regular.")

The same is true of "travelled." (The preferred U.S. spelling is
"traveled.") 

"Alloted" and "formated," however, are not considered accepted
spellings in U.S. English.


         ----------------------
         Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 
         From: Lane Lester, llester@simpub.com

Anna Beth McCormack wrote:

> English:
> focused, biased, allotted, formatted (rule being to 'double
> when the stress is on the 2nd syllable')
> BUT levelled ('l' being the exception)
>
> US:
> focussed, biassed, alloted, formated
> BUT leveled ('l' being the exception again)

The U.S. information must come from a different part of the
country than I've lived in, and I've lived in six different
states pretty evenly spaced all over the country. I've never seen
any of the above examples by competent writers.


         ------------------------
         Date: Thurs, 31 Jan 2002 
         From: Kathleen Lyle, Kathleen@klyle.demon.co.uk

Jane Lyle writes

> "in the U.K. commonly, but irregularly, written focussed."

But should always be edited to 'focused', according to any style
guide I know of.


         ------------------------
         Date: Thurs, 31 Jan 2002 
         From: Alex Gray, wordworks@gairloch.co.uk

Jane Lyle wrote:

> You consider "focussed" and "biassed" to be American spellings?
> ... I've always considered "focussed" to be British--and the
> OED agrees ...

'focussed' and 'biassed' are not accepted UK English spelling,
although the dictionary reports them. Odd that the OED mentions
them when it does not admit of much more accepted alternate
spellings in the UK of -is- for -iz- (such as 'organisation'). I
guess the phrase 'irregularly used' is as close as a dictionary
compiler could bear to come to 'wrongly used' !!

> The same is true of "travelled." (The preferred U.S. spelling
> is "traveled.")

The UK spelling is -ll- same for 'dialled' - as I recall,
Partridge discusses this and indicates that -l- is irregular in
UK usage.


         ---------------------
         Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 
         From: Simon Cauchi, cauchi@wave.co.nz

Kathleen Lyle wrote: 

> But should always be edited to 'focused', according to any
> style guide I know of.

Indeed, but the dictionaries record both spellings: "focused,
focusing, or focussed, focussing", as ACOD (the Antipodean COD)
has it. The doubling of the s is readily understandable. The
writer wishes to make it clear beyond doubt that the word is
pronounced with an unvoiced /s/, not a voiced /z/. However, the
doubled s doesn't remove any possible doubt about whether the
stress falls on the first or the second syllable:

focused: /'fouk@st/ or possibly /f@'kju:zd/
(read /@/ as schwa, and /ju:z/ as the verb 'use')

focussed: /'fouk@st/ or possibly /f@'k0st/
(read 0 as the vowel in 'dust')

Similarly with formating/formatting. Where is the stress? And do
the last two syllables rhyme with "mating" or "matting"? Answer:
Neither. It's the unstressed vowel as in "targeting".


         ---------------------
         Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 
         From: Damaris Wilson, Wilsondidi@aol.com

> Odd that the OED mentions them when it does not admit of much
> more accepted alternate spellings in the UK of -is- for -iz- 

...and for alternate read alternative?? 


  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  END OF EDline 7.34

  Admin page: < http://www.electriceditors.net/edline/admin.htm >

  ** The views expressed in this mailing list are strictly those
  of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect
  the views of the moderators or of the Electric Editors. **

  Articles (c) 2001, 2002, by individual contributors
  Design (c) 1996--2002 Iain Brown
  Compilation (c) 2002, Iain Brown / The Electric Editors
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=