English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is the following the right way to use sufficeth (assuming it is not replaced with something else)?

... , but sufficeth to say that the primary method of measuring parallax in stars is via "Annual Parallax"

Isn't it missing a subject?

... , but it sufficeth to say that the primary method of measuring parallax in stars is via "Annual Parallax"



  1. (archaic) Third-person singular simple present indicative form of suffice.


share|improve this question
up vote 8 down vote accepted

The other answers are great; this relatively common usage should also be mentioned:

... but suffice it to say ...

share|improve this answer
I think a lot of people mishear this one as 'sufficeth': this may well be what the writer intended. – TimLymington Aug 24 '11 at 9:54
Yes, suffice it to say is an adverb. – Peter Mortensen Aug 24 '11 at 10:28

"Sufficeth" is the equivalent of the modern-day "suffices", with an 's'. This can be seen by other words which end with "-eth", such as :

He goeth to Morgantious./He goes to Morgantious

Now, we could say "Go to Morgantious", but we can't say "Goet to Morgantious", because we can't say "goes to Morgantious."

Thus, in the same way, we can't say "but sufficeth, we would need a pronoun :

but it sufficeth to say...

in the same way we would write:

but it suffices to say.

share|improve this answer
I'm not sure your logic follows in this case: you seem to be saying, "because in contemporary English the dummy pronoun cannot be dropped, that automatically means that in the period when the 3rd person ending was -(e)th, it also couldn't be dropped". – Neil Coffey Aug 24 '11 at 12:49
In fact, I strongly suspect the OQ heard someone say "suffice it" and thought he heard "sufficeth" – T.E.D. Aug 24 '11 at 18:06

“Sufficeth” is just an old spelling of “suffices” commonly used in the King James translation of the Bible and other Renaissance religious texts. People often use it in a joking manner to give their writing a semi-Biblical air, especially in the phrase “it sufficeth to say.” But they sound clumsy rather than clever when they omit the “it” and begin the phrase thus “Sufficeth to say....”

“Sufficeth” is a verb; it requires a subject.

It means:

be adequate, sufficient, enough and capable

share|improve this answer
@A. Uysal--I edited your answer; please let me know if you do not like the changes I made. – simchona Aug 24 '11 at 9:52
I am a new user so I can not be aware of some.. No Problem.. You can edit every time Thanks. – A.Uysal Aug 24 '11 at 10:07
@A. Uysal--I don't want to obscure your meaning in an answer, so please feel free to comment if I edit your answer and you think I didn't do it justice. – simchona Aug 24 '11 at 10:09
@Peter: Because I didn't catch that. – simchona Aug 24 '11 at 10:26
@A.Uysal, the King James Bible was first published in 1611, and language has shifted somewhat since then. The -eth endings gradually shifted to an -s ending (e.g. "goeth" to "goes", "thinketh" to "thinks".) While you are correct about the meaning, I wanted to point out that the usage was common to most (if not all) texts of the era including Shakespeare, and not confined to only religious texts. – Andrew Neely Aug 24 '11 at 11:49

It is OK to omit it, but then you need to use singular first-person form.

Suffice to say, his work was extraordinary.

If you want to use third-person form, than yes, you'll need it

It suffices to say that his work was extraordinary

In my opinion, though, It suffices to say should be changed to It is sufficient to say - sounds much better.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.