I came across this in connection with an unrelated issue> beta[2]Error in beta[2] : object is not subsettable> beta[2] <- 5Error 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 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45) 35327907
On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 18:13, p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk 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
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@biostat.ku.dk 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. >
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'. > > DeepayanOK...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...>
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@stat.math.ethz.ch
> [mailto:r-devel-bounces@stat.math.ethz.ch] On Behalf Of
> MSchwartz@medanalytics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 10:48 PM
> To: r-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch
> Cc: R-bugs@biostat.ku.dk
> 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@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
> https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listi> nfo/r-devel
>
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 p.dalgaard@biostat.ku.dk 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. >English (OED or Chambers) will be subsettable, American might well have a single t. I notice this most in words with double l: eg American uses `modeling' rather than `modelling'. R usually tries to use English (but is a little schizophrenic about OED vs Chambers, eg for words ending in -i{s,z}e -thomas
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@MedAnalytics.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 11:38 PM > To: Latchezar Dimitrov > Cc: r-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch; R-bugs@biostat.ku.dk; Deepayan > Sarkar; Roger D. Peng; p.dalgaard@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 > > >