On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:43:17 -0800, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:48:51 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>> 
>>> I've not read the forums but I know that some people will believe
>>> anything.
>> 
>> Did you know the word 'gullible' is not in any dictionary?
>> 
>> Jim
> 
> It's spelled "gullable"

Actually, it can be spelt either way (and I didn't have to look it up, 
either <g>).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:43:17 -0800, Chambers wrote:
>> It's spelled "gullable"
> 
> Actually, it can be spelt either way (and I didn't have to look it up, 
> either <g>).
> 
> Jim

Actually, it can't*, and that's the joke ;)

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

*At least, I've really looked in dictionaries, and never seen but the 
one spelling.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:08:44 -0800, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:43:17 -0800, Chambers wrote:
>>> It's spelled "gullable"
>> 
>> Actually, it can be spelt either way (and I didn't have to look it up,
>> either <g>).
>> 
>> Jim
> 
> Actually, it can't*, and that's the joke ;)

OED 2nd edition lists it as an alternate spelling.  :-)

gullable (__________), a.
[f. gull v.3 + -able.]
= gullible. Hence
gulla'bility, 'gullableness = gullibility.

Jim

Post a reply to this message