4

According to https://proofreadmydocument.com.au/writing-tips/spelling-tips-the-doubling-up-rule/ and https://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/resources/view/resource/20/, we should spell the past participle of "develop" as "developed", and the present particple as "developing" (mult-syllable, unstressed final syllable of the stem). Goolge prefers it, too. Still, it provides us with over 23800 references for

site:.au "developped"

Are they all wrong?

As for Bing,

site:.au "developed"

and

site:.au "developped"

have approximately the same counts.

Improve this question
3
  • 2
    Google search results do not give accurate estimates. When I perform that search and go to the last page, it says there are only 121 results.
    – Laurel
    Oct 2 '18 at 22:58
  • They might not be all 'wrong' - some might be Aussies protesting the lopping of trees during land development.
    – Lawrence
    Oct 2 '18 at 23:39
  • Always refer to your national dictionary as an authoritarian source. Assuming that Macquarie is the commonly accepted source (I don't know for certain but suspect it is), then it will be correct.
    – Jason Bassford
    Oct 3 '18 at 9:56
1

While I do not know how normative it is considered in Australia, the Macquarie Dictionary refers to itself as "Australia's National Dictionary" on the cover. I have a slightly older printed version, but it is also available online for paying subscribers.

Macquarie Dictionary, Revised Third Edition (The Macquarie Library, 2003):
developed /də'vɛləpt/ adjective 1. having undergone development. 2. industrialised.
developing /də'vɛləpɪŋ/ adjective 1. undergoing development 2. Also, less-developed, underdeveloped (of a country) in the early stages of developing an industrial economy.

Improve this answer
0
1

The OED recognises developped and developping as past tense/participle and present participle, but states that both have been "non-standard" since the eighteenth century.

The OED recognises a corpus of English around the world and were they in current Australian use, I am sure would say so.

Improve this answer
3
  • 1
    nGram shows a surprising peak at the end of the 20th Century, mostly from scientific journals as far as I can tell. Nonetheless I'd consider the double-consonant spelling to be archaic, as the OED agrees.
    – Mike C
    Oct 2 '18 at 10:38
  • @user49915 There is no mention of Australia.
    – WS2
    Oct 2 '18 at 17:34
  • @user49915 All I'm saying is that there is nothing in that OED entry which references the obsolete spelling to Australia.
    – WS2
    Oct 2 '18 at 22:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy