TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Engageability vs engagability (was: "RE: Browseable vs browsable?)
Subject:Engageability vs engagability (was: "RE: Browseable vs browsable?) From:"Andrew Warren" <awarren -at- synaptics -dot- com> To:"Kathy Bowman" <Kathy -dot- Bowman -at- saabsystems -dot- com -dot- au>, "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:14:01 -0700
Kathy Bowman wrote:
> neither 'engageability' nor 'engagability' exists in any dictionary
> I have seen. It is jargon, but appropriate for the context. Which
> spelling do you think I should use for this nonexistent word?
I can think of only three English words in which a soft G is not
followed by "e" or "i", and only one of them has no alternate