Talk:inable

Is this an actual word?

I don't think inable is actually a word. I've looked it up on Google briefly, and haven't found any reasonable results. Rubykuby (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• If you want to contest it, the thing to do is add an {{rfv}} (request for verification) template, and follow the generated link. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. I'm still trying to understand the wiki system. Rubykuby (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March 2012

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

inable

I don't think inable is actually a word. Could someone please clarify? Rubykuby (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've certainly never heard of it, but I can also see how non-native speakers (or poorly educated native speakers) might hit upon this form.

• google books:"inable": 50K hits, but the first page is mostly scannos from what I can tell. Dictionary.com shows up at the top, but they just point the user to enable with no other information. A few real hits from sources in the 1800s.
• google scholar:"inable": 12K hits. Again, first page is either scannos like "indiscrim- inable" or old sources from the 1800s and earlier.
• google groups:"inable": 11K hits. Many scannos again, but these hits do start to show use as an alternate for unable, and a quick look at a few such instances strongly suggests that this is a non-native-speaker spelling error.

Given the numerous valid sources from older times, maybe we can just qualify this as {{archaic}} or {{obsolete}}? — This unsigned comment was added by Eirikr (talk • contribs).

Right, I've tagged it "obsolete, now nonstandard". If anyone wants to claim "widespread (old) use" and close this, I've no objection. - -sche (discuss) 20:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to ride roughshod over the nom, but in the interests of keeping this page tidy and not making anyone spend their time citing things which are clearly attestable, I've closed this. - -sche (discuss) 04:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)