From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,b659179a48c574cb
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b659179a48c574cb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Maintainable is not a jargon word
Date: 1996/08/08
Message-ID: <dewar.839545655@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 173026349
references: <dewar.839331836@schonberg> <DvqLrn.A6y@world.std.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c
Date: 1996-08-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bob Duff said

"In article <dewar.839331836@schonberg>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>By 1541, in Act 33 Hen VIII c 21, we have something closer to the modern
>spelling "mainteinable", and the modern spelling is quoted for the first
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>time in 1680 in the London Gazette.

I guess I'm a bit behind the times."



I don't get that. Read carefully what I said, the 1541 quote uses the
spelling mainteinable, but it is not till 1680 that the modern spelling
maintainable appears. 

Are you saying that you are behind the times because you are still using
some other spelling that "maintainable"? :-)