We have a funky little tick in our English (American?) language:
Adding the suffix "able" to something.
Where does this come from? The closer you look, the less sense it makes. The phrase "accounts payable" makes pretty good sense. We’re just talking numerical values, folks. "We owe this guy X dollars." No interpretation, just a number value (until you get the lawyers involved…).
But what about "commendable" or "desirable" or "execrable"?
"Commendable" by whom? Given the context, probably "commendable" by whomever said the person or thing is "commendable." But that’s just a quick-and-dirty explanation that doesn’t get down to real paydirt.
If I say something is "commendable," I’m saying something is "worthy of commendation." But somehow the word "commendable" implies that this quality resides in the thing that is being commended—RATHER than a more rational observation that a subjective judgment has been made by ME that the person or thing is "worthy of commendation."
So I’m involved with projection on a massive scale when I say something is "commendable." I’m projecting onto some object an attribute which exists only because of MY FEELINGS about it. And if most of the people who are listening to me or reading my article agree with me, then I have their vote and that begins to crudely legitimize my projection—although it sure as heck hasn’t PROVEN anything.
But this raises another related question: maybe projection isn’t so simple, after all. Maybe projection can involve multiple people (hey, look at the news media…) and maybe it involves something truly intrinsic to the object of discussion…
Anyway, I better stop before I make this too dang complicated.
What do You-all think about the way we use "able" as a suffix?
Your adorable friend,
infodweeb
