Why do we liquefy when we also solidify (but not soledefy)?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
I always misspell liquefy and it drives me nuts.
Solids will (or, I suppose, have) solidify but liquids apparently miss out on the chance to liquidify. Instead they have to liquefy I'm sure this is a simple English rule that I have forgotten from elementary school but I can't put my finger on it.
orthography
asked Feb 13 at 0:37
Brian RBrian R
23313
add a comment |
I always misspell liquefy and it drives me nuts.
Solids will (or, I suppose, have) solidify but liquids apparently miss out on the chance to liquidify. Instead they have to liquefy I'm sure this is a simple English rule that I have forgotten from elementary school but I can't put my finger on it.
orthography
asked Feb 13 at 0:37
Brian RBrian R
23313
add a comment |
I always misspell liquefy and it drives me nuts.
Solids will (or, I suppose, have) solidify but liquids apparently miss out on the chance to liquidify. Instead they have to liquefy I'm sure this is a simple English rule that I have forgotten from elementary school but I can't put my finger on it.
orthography
asked Feb 13 at 0:37
Brian RBrian R
23313
I always misspell liquefy and it drives me nuts.
Solids will (or, I suppose, have) solidify but liquids apparently miss out on the chance to liquidify. Instead they have to liquefy I'm sure this is a simple English rule that I have forgotten from elementary school but I can't put my finger on it.
orthography
orthography
asked Feb 13 at 0:37
Brian RBrian R
23313
asked Feb 13 at 0:37
Brian RBrian R
23313
asked Feb 13 at 0:37
Brian RBrian R
23313
asked Feb 13 at 0:37
Brian RBrian R
23313
asked Feb 13 at 0:37
Brian RBrian R
23313
23313
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I don't think this is explained by any English rule. It's just based on etymology.
The spelling liquify actually exists as a variant.
In terms of etymology, the Latin source of liquefy is liquefacio, which is supposed to have been derived from compounding the verb liqueo with facio. A similarly formed (now obsolete in English) word is calefy, where the first part comes from the Latin verb caleo. Putrefy may also be analogous.
In contrast, the Latin ancestor of solid, the adjective solidus, has no corresponding verb *"soleo" or *"solideo" (an unrelated verb soleo "to be accustomed" exists). And the formation of the verb based on the adjective is supposed to have occurred in French, not in Latin: French solide + the French suffix -(i)fier made solidifier.
answered Feb 13 at 0:53
sumelicsumelic
49.2k8116223
1
Okay, wow. I've always spelled it with an i and never known (or realized or recalled) that it is not only also spelled with an e but that the e version is its primary spelling. In thinking about it, I must have known of the e version—but simply translated it in my head back into the i version I personally use. I just looked it up in all of my regular dictionaries—and this is indeed correct.
– Jason Bassford
Feb 13 at 3:28
And I'd never known that there was any rationale behind this at all! I thought it was just another illustration of English spelling being neither phonetic nor logical.
– nigel222
Feb 13 at 9:37
@JasonBassford I'd always spelled it with an 'i' as well. So I ran an Ngram analysis on the two spellings and, guess what, "liquify" is far more common except for a little blip from about 1890 to about 1918 when they were just about equal. I think we're on the winning side.
– BoldBen
Feb 13 at 10:13
@BoldBen: By default, the Google Ngram Viewer is sensitive to capitalization. If you compare "liquify" to "liquefy" (or do a case-insensitive comparison), the "e" spelling comes out ahead.
– sumelic
Feb 13 at 10:14
@sumelic Well done, I hadn't noticed the default capitalisation!
– BoldBen
Feb 13 at 11:38
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f485304%2fwhy-do-we-liquefy-when-we-also-solidify-but-not-soledefy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I don't think this is explained by any English rule. It's just based on etymology.
The spelling liquify actually exists as a variant.
In terms of etymology, the Latin source of liquefy is liquefacio, which is supposed to have been derived from compounding the verb liqueo with facio. A similarly formed (now obsolete in English) word is calefy, where the first part comes from the Latin verb caleo. Putrefy may also be analogous.
In contrast, the Latin ancestor of solid, the adjective solidus, has no corresponding verb *"soleo" or *"solideo" (an unrelated verb soleo "to be accustomed" exists). And the formation of the verb based on the adjective is supposed to have occurred in French, not in Latin: French solide + the French suffix -(i)fier made solidifier.
answered Feb 13 at 0:53
sumelicsumelic
49.2k8116223
1
Okay, wow. I've always spelled it with an i and never known (or realized or recalled) that it is not only also spelled with an e but that the e version is its primary spelling. In thinking about it, I must have known of the e version—but simply translated it in my head back into the i version I personally use. I just looked it up in all of my regular dictionaries—and this is indeed correct.
– Jason Bassford
Feb 13 at 3:28
And I'd never known that there was any rationale behind this at all! I thought it was just another illustration of English spelling being neither phonetic nor logical.
– nigel222
Feb 13 at 9:37
@JasonBassford I'd always spelled it with an 'i' as well. So I ran an Ngram analysis on the two spellings and, guess what, "liquify" is far more common except for a little blip from about 1890 to about 1918 when they were just about equal. I think we're on the winning side.
– BoldBen
Feb 13 at 10:13
@BoldBen: By default, the Google Ngram Viewer is sensitive to capitalization. If you compare "liquify" to "liquefy" (or do a case-insensitive comparison), the "e" spelling comes out ahead.
– sumelic
Feb 13 at 10:14
@sumelic Well done, I hadn't noticed the default capitalisation!
– BoldBen
Feb 13 at 11:38
add a comment |
I don't think this is explained by any English rule. It's just based on etymology.
The spelling liquify actually exists as a variant.
In terms of etymology, the Latin source of liquefy is liquefacio, which is supposed to have been derived from compounding the verb liqueo with facio. A similarly formed (now obsolete in English) word is calefy, where the first part comes from the Latin verb caleo. Putrefy may also be analogous.
In contrast, the Latin ancestor of solid, the adjective solidus, has no corresponding verb *"soleo" or *"solideo" (an unrelated verb soleo "to be accustomed" exists). And the formation of the verb based on the adjective is supposed to have occurred in French, not in Latin: French solide + the French suffix -(i)fier made solidifier.
answered Feb 13 at 0:53
sumelicsumelic
49.2k8116223
1
Okay, wow. I've always spelled it with an i and never known (or realized or recalled) that it is not only also spelled with an e but that the e version is its primary spelling. In thinking about it, I must have known of the e version—but simply translated it in my head back into the i version I personally use. I just looked it up in all of my regular dictionaries—and this is indeed correct.
– Jason Bassford
Feb 13 at 3:28
And I'd never known that there was any rationale behind this at all! I thought it was just another illustration of English spelling being neither phonetic nor logical.
– nigel222
Feb 13 at 9:37
@JasonBassford I'd always spelled it with an 'i' as well. So I ran an Ngram analysis on the two spellings and, guess what, "liquify" is far more common except for a little blip from about 1890 to about 1918 when they were just about equal. I think we're on the winning side.
– BoldBen
Feb 13 at 10:13
@BoldBen: By default, the Google Ngram Viewer is sensitive to capitalization. If you compare "liquify" to "liquefy" (or do a case-insensitive comparison), the "e" spelling comes out ahead.
– sumelic
Feb 13 at 10:14
@sumelic Well done, I hadn't noticed the default capitalisation!
– BoldBen
Feb 13 at 11:38
add a comment |
I don't think this is explained by any English rule. It's just based on etymology.
The spelling liquify actually exists as a variant.
In terms of etymology, the Latin source of liquefy is liquefacio, which is supposed to have been derived from compounding the verb liqueo with facio. A similarly formed (now obsolete in English) word is calefy, where the first part comes from the Latin verb caleo. Putrefy may also be analogous.
In contrast, the Latin ancestor of solid, the adjective solidus, has no corresponding verb *"soleo" or *"solideo" (an unrelated verb soleo "to be accustomed" exists). And the formation of the verb based on the adjective is supposed to have occurred in French, not in Latin: French solide + the French suffix -(i)fier made solidifier.
answered Feb 13 at 0:53
sumelicsumelic
49.2k8116223
I don't think this is explained by any English rule. It's just based on etymology.
The spelling liquify actually exists as a variant.
In terms of etymology, the Latin source of liquefy is liquefacio, which is supposed to have been derived from compounding the verb liqueo with facio. A similarly formed (now obsolete in English) word is calefy, where the first part comes from the Latin verb caleo. Putrefy may also be analogous.
In contrast, the Latin ancestor of solid, the adjective solidus, has no corresponding verb *"soleo" or *"solideo" (an unrelated verb soleo "to be accustomed" exists). And the formation of the verb based on the adjective is supposed to have occurred in French, not in Latin: French solide + the French suffix -(i)fier made solidifier.
answered Feb 13 at 0:53
sumelicsumelic
49.2k8116223
edited Feb 13 at 6:35
answered Feb 13 at 0:53
sumelicsumelic
49.2k8116223
answered Feb 13 at 0:53
sumelicsumelic
49.2k8116223
answered Feb 13 at 0:53
sumelicsumelic
49.2k8116223
49.2k8116223
1
Okay, wow. I've always spelled it with an i and never known (or realized or recalled) that it is not only also spelled with an e but that the e version is its primary spelling. In thinking about it, I must have known of the e version—but simply translated it in my head back into the i version I personally use. I just looked it up in all of my regular dictionaries—and this is indeed correct.
– Jason Bassford
Feb 13 at 3:28
And I'd never known that there was any rationale behind this at all! I thought it was just another illustration of English spelling being neither phonetic nor logical.
– nigel222
Feb 13 at 9:37
@JasonBassford I'd always spelled it with an 'i' as well. So I ran an Ngram analysis on the two spellings and, guess what, "liquify" is far more common except for a little blip from about 1890 to about 1918 when they were just about equal. I think we're on the winning side.
– BoldBen
Feb 13 at 10:13
@BoldBen: By default, the Google Ngram Viewer is sensitive to capitalization. If you compare "liquify" to "liquefy" (or do a case-insensitive comparison), the "e" spelling comes out ahead.
– sumelic
Feb 13 at 10:14
@sumelic Well done, I hadn't noticed the default capitalisation!
– BoldBen
Feb 13 at 11:38
add a comment |
1
Okay, wow. I've always spelled it with an i and never known (or realized or recalled) that it is not only also spelled with an e but that the e version is its primary spelling. In thinking about it, I must have known of the e version—but simply translated it in my head back into the i version I personally use. I just looked it up in all of my regular dictionaries—and this is indeed correct.
– Jason Bassford
Feb 13 at 3:28
And I'd never known that there was any rationale behind this at all! I thought it was just another illustration of English spelling being neither phonetic nor logical.
– nigel222
Feb 13 at 9:37
@JasonBassford I'd always spelled it with an 'i' as well. So I ran an Ngram analysis on the two spellings and, guess what, "liquify" is far more common except for a little blip from about 1890 to about 1918 when they were just about equal. I think we're on the winning side.
– BoldBen
Feb 13 at 10:13
@BoldBen: By default, the Google Ngram Viewer is sensitive to capitalization. If you compare "liquify" to "liquefy" (or do a case-insensitive comparison), the "e" spelling comes out ahead.
– sumelic
Feb 13 at 10:14
@sumelic Well done, I hadn't noticed the default capitalisation!
– BoldBen
Feb 13 at 11:38
1
1
Okay, wow. I've always spelled it with an i and never known (or realized or recalled) that it is not only also spelled with an e but that the e version is its primary spelling. In thinking about it, I must have known of the e version—but simply translated it in my head back into the i version I personally use. I just looked it up in all of my regular dictionaries—and this is indeed correct.
– Jason Bassford
Feb 13 at 3:28
Okay, wow. I've always spelled it with an i and never known (or realized or recalled) that it is not only also spelled with an e but that the e version is its primary spelling. In thinking about it, I must have known of the e version—but simply translated it in my head back into the i version I personally use. I just looked it up in all of my regular dictionaries—and this is indeed correct.
– Jason Bassford
Feb 13 at 3:28
And I'd never known that there was any rationale behind this at all! I thought it was just another illustration of English spelling being neither phonetic nor logical.
– nigel222
Feb 13 at 9:37
And I'd never known that there was any rationale behind this at all! I thought it was just another illustration of English spelling being neither phonetic nor logical.
– nigel222
Feb 13 at 9:37
@JasonBassford I'd always spelled it with an 'i' as well. So I ran an Ngram analysis on the two spellings and, guess what, "liquify" is far more common except for a little blip from about 1890 to about 1918 when they were just about equal. I think we're on the winning side.
– BoldBen
Feb 13 at 10:13
@JasonBassford I'd always spelled it with an 'i' as well. So I ran an Ngram analysis on the two spellings and, guess what, "liquify" is far more common except for a little blip from about 1890 to about 1918 when they were just about equal. I think we're on the winning side.
– BoldBen
Feb 13 at 10:13
@BoldBen: By default, the Google Ngram Viewer is sensitive to capitalization. If you compare "liquify" to "liquefy" (or do a case-insensitive comparison), the "e" spelling comes out ahead.
– sumelic
Feb 13 at 10:14
@BoldBen: By default, the Google Ngram Viewer is sensitive to capitalization. If you compare "liquify" to "liquefy" (or do a case-insensitive comparison), the "e" spelling comes out ahead.
– sumelic
Feb 13 at 10:14
@sumelic Well done, I hadn't noticed the default capitalisation!
– BoldBen
Feb 13 at 11:38
@sumelic Well done, I hadn't noticed the default capitalisation!
– BoldBen
Feb 13 at 11:38
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f485304%2fwhy-do-we-liquefy-when-we-also-solidify-but-not-soledefy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
