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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 11:38 PM > To: Latchezar Dimitrov > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Deepayan > Sarkar; Roger D. Peng; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 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 > > > ______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
