[Rd] Spelling (PR#6570)

[Latchezar Dimitrov]

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 at MedAnalytics.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 11:38 PM
> To: Latchezar Dimitrov
> Cc: r-devel at stat.math.ethz.ch; R-bugs at biostat.ku.dk; Deepayan 
> Sarkar; Roger D. Peng; p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk; 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
> 
> 
>