I have an entity and I would like to describe it as being able to be archived.
Is it archivable, archiveable? The former seems OK for me, but I could find no wiktionary.org results.
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this communityI have an entity and I would like to describe it as being able to be archived.
Is it archivable, archiveable? The former seems OK for me, but I could find no wiktionary.org results.
Archivable is correct. -e more often than not drops off when adding -able (it varies a lot, mostly based on whether the word looks better with or without the e; I wouldn't say this is a case that greatly calls for keeping it, and the Google stats tend to indicate others agree).
/usr/share/dict/words
that do appear to be formed by dropping -e and adding -able (excluding words formed by dropping more than a -e, like abominable), and the list is more than a hundred characters too long to post in a comment. I think you're right that "generally" is too much to say, though; it had been nagging at me too.
– chaos
Feb 9 '11 at 11:08
It is archivable, in the same way from cite you get citable.
There are some differences between British English and American English. In British English, such adjectives (derived from a verb ending in -e) are preferred when they end with -eable; in American English, the preferred form ends in -able (the -e is removed from the verb).
The dictionary I have (the NOAD) doesn't report the word archivable, but it reports citable as derivative of cite, and archival as derivative of archive.
The best reference point I can think of is "livable." I found this post because I had the same question about an interface I wanted to name "IArchivable." Looks to me like--regardless of how we got there, the consensus (on this side of the pond) is "archivable." So, that's what I'll be using!^)