bug#1476: 23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be (un)writable

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > It's about general usage, in practice. Whether "both are 
> > fine" is really beside the point.
> 
> Googling for "writable -writeable" gets about 2,6 Mhits, while
> "writeable -writable" gets around 0,9 Mhits. Fewer, but still sizable.

Yes, and googling for "labour -labor" gets 56.4 million, versus 173 million for
"labor -labour". Only about three to one.

But Emacs has standardized on American spelling. American usage generally drops
a final "e" when adding suffix "able".

Here is a bit from the Cambridge Guide to Australian English Usage:

-eable  This ending is really a composite of the final e of a root word and the
-able suffix. It is a matter of necessity for some words, and of choice for
others. It is the necessary ending for words such as changeable and traceable,
because -eable serves to preserve the "j" or "s" sounnd in them (see -ce/-ge).
But for others such as lik(e)able, liv(e)able, siz(e)able and us(e)able, it's
possible to use either -eable or just -able. Broadly speaking, the Oxford
Dictionary tradition maintains the first spelling (except for usable), while
American English (Webster's 1986) is squarely behind the second. It is more in
line with the major rule over dropping fine e (see e)...

For more of the quote:
http://books.google.com/books?id=nV8h0gnU1UEC&pg=RA1-PA237&lpg=RA1-PA237&dq=suff
ix+eable+able+spelling&source=web&ots=ztUmc45nwi&sig=YnjusFpRwdJo9_eQm8aCPrlBheo
&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result

> I don't think anyone has trouble understanding "writeable".

No, of course not. That's not the point.