30

The dialect is American English, but I'd be interested to know if this varies between dialects. Is it"togglable" or "toggleable"? Because neither dictionary.com, webster.com, nor Outlook's spelling suggestions/checker tend to have any record of this word. I have a hard time believing it's not a word in proper English though, and I would be tempted to think its spelling is "toggleable".

  • 3
    Google's book search reveals 300 results for "toggleable" and 45 results for "togglable". Not a lot of traction on either word, but "toggleable" is more popular. – Ian MacDonald Mar 10 '15 at 13:30
  • Why don't you believe it's not a word? Generally you would use "two-state widget" or "widget that can be toggled". – Kevin Workman Mar 10 '15 at 13:33
  • 6
    Syntactically and orthographically, to toggle is much the same as to handle, where Google NGram makes it pretty obvious most people still retain the 'e' in 'handleable'. Contrast with sizable/sizeable, where most people have discarded the 'e', and lovable/loveable, where practically everyone has discarded it. Me, I'm just hopelessly inconsistent. – FumbleFingers Mar 10 '15 at 13:58
  • 3
  • 1
    @Kevin: Any word + valid affix = word. It's called "productive morphology." – Ben Oct 25 '19 at 17:15
18

It's not a word, so it has no formal spelling as of now. The English language's main strength is its adaptability, so one day it will most likely be officially accepted as a word, but for now, it has no defined spelling.

I would personally keep the e, as there are 3 consonants before it, and that makes me want to balance the scales a bit, and that's how it works in some others with the same scenario, like settleable, whistleable, and handleable.

| improve this answer | |
  • 13
    Why do you say it's not a word? Just because it's not in a dictionary? If you're waiting for it to be "officially accepted as a word", you'll be waiting a long time, since there is no official organization with the power to do so. Anyway, I agree with the spelling suggested here. – herisson Mar 10 '15 at 16:59
  • 2
    Good point, I'm going with a technical not-a-word thing. There aren't any official organizations that represent the English language, sure, but Merriam-Webster qualifies in my eyes. Once they add a word, I consider it "official." – friff14 Mar 10 '15 at 17:06
  • 3
    What about when it gets added to wiktionary? Or when it shows up > 500k times in Google? There simply is no "official" recognition of words in English, and arguably if two people use it and understand each other, it's already a word. – treeface Sep 12 '17 at 20:43
  • @friff14: "...a technical not-a-word thing..." Again: There is no such thing, for English. If there were, it certainly wouldn't be Merriam-Webster; the OED, more likely. But they are clear their role (indeed, the role of English dictionaries in general) is descriptive, not prescriptive. – T.J. Crowder Mar 28 '18 at 14:49

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