Talk:navigatable

RFV discussion: November 2014–February 2015
I suppose this can be kept, can't it? But I think there should be a note saying that it is marginal and that 'navigable' is preferred for all uses.

I see no evidence for the alleged specific meaning 'navigation of electronic media or web sites'.
 * I see evidence to the contrary: "the world's highest navigatable lake", "navigatable and unchartable territories", "Rivers were made navigatable". All from the first 20 hits on Google Books. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added four quotations to the entry and changed the definition to "Alternative form of navigable". I hope that resolves the concern about the definition being too narrow. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Could I push you to nonstandard form of? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to change it—I don't have strong feelings about it. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not common enough to appear in COHA and occurs about 0.1% as often as navigable and about the same recently as navagable, which is an uncommon misspelling. Navigable is a word that has declined by a factor of 10 since the early decades of the 19th century, when inland water transport, including by canal, was revolutionary and important. Navigatable seems to be a sign that navigable may be drifting out of use for some, who probably haven't heard or read it and are producing a term suitable for their meaning from navigate. How does that make it nonstandard?
 * Etymologically, it is clearly not an alternative form of navigable, which is from a Latin adjective, not navigate. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought I preferred "non-standard form of" since Wiktionary is the only dictionary in which the word appears, and, though the word is certainly used, it is still extremely rare compared with "navigable" and doesn't seem to convey a different meaning. On the other hand, it meets our criteria for a newly-coined word.  How can we determine whether those writers intended to coin a new word, or just made an error?  Perhaps just a usage note would be appropriate.    D b f  i  r  s   09:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to call something non-standard when someone uses a valid, productive English morphological process to produce a readily understandable word. A usage note that indicates that people will look askance at one's evident lack of reading if one uses navigatable rather than navigable might be appropriate, though it is hard to find evidence of authoritative disapproval. I can find mention of the navigable-navigatable doublet in lists of such doublets (appreciable/appreciatable, demonstrable/demonstratable, tolerable/toleratable, 'comparable/com'parable, reparable/repairable, operable/operatable, divisible/dividible/dividable) in books on morphology. The tolerable/toleratable pair illustrates that the accretion of meanings in the older form may make the purer morphological derivative yield a clearer meaning. Given the strong association of navigable with words like waters, rivers, waterways (navigable waterways having a legal meaning in the US), it would not surprise me that navigatable might come to be used where effortful navigation by a person needed to be conveyed. DCDuring TALK 16:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a usage note to take into account this possibility. Please adjust it as you think appropriate.    D b f  i  r  s   21:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't read as very dictionary-like, but that might be a good thing, inviting contributions and striking a more explicitly descriptive note than we usually do. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was trying to avoid the use of prescriptivist "non-standard" without misleading readers about usage. The OED has operatable and demonstratable (and repairable of course).  I've added our two missing words just as alternative forms because the shades of meaning are too subtle for me to distinguish reliably.    D b f  i  r  s   10:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that whatever the subtle differences in meaning, if indeed there are any, they are hard to identify, at least in the case of navigatable/navigable, and quite likely others.
 * But in some cases, if they are indeed novel coinages using a productive morphological process, the meanings are likely to be limited to those corresponding to the most common, possibly the more literal, senses of the verb from which they are derived. DCDuring TALK 14:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that we need to examine each case on its merits. For the two words that I added, the coinage was long, long ago.  Personally, I would use the longer form only if I wished to specially emphasise the direct connection with the verb, but historic usage doesn't seem to have been so selective.
 * In the special case of reparable/repairable, the two forms remained in parallel use for 140 years (1830 to 1970 approx) but the latter has now become the standard form, occurring three times more often than the shorter word in 1990 according to Google Ngrams.  D b f  i  r  s   22:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The word appreciatable is not common. Some usages seem to be in error (where appreciable is intended), but others carry a distinct meaning.  I'm wondering how to show this in an entry.    D b f  i  r  s   22:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried using the context tag to indicate the limited context in which it is used. I hope we don't have "misspelling of too" as a definition line in [[to]]. DCDuring TALK 23:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that looks about right.   D b f  i  r  s   23:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We have a large number of "able" forms that are doublets of more common "ible" forms, some with variations in the root. See User:DCDuring/words ending in -ible. DCDuring TALK 01:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See also User:DCDuring/words ending in -table. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * See navigable waters. DCDuring TALK 23:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a less US-centric definition. The term is used outside the USofA!  Sorry, the usage worldwide seems to be just sum of parts except for a British Act of Parliament.  I'm checking.    D b f  i  r  s   23:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clarification in the entry.   D b f  i  r  s   08:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * RFV-passed. If it still needs cleanup, I either move to RFC or boldly clean it up. - -sche (discuss) 21:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)