Re: "cumulated" or "accumulated"

[Chris Jones]

On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 07:23:03PM EST, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Chris Jones wrote:
> > Jens Petersen wrote:

> > > I received a downstream bug report [1], suggesting that gettext
> > > should use the word "accumulated" instead of "cumulated".

> Seems reasonable to me.  I would have written it that way the first
> time if I had been the original author of those statements.
> 
> > > ... comments will be cumulated, except that if ...


> That does sound like a very odd usage to me.
> 
> > > In current English the verb "cumulate" seems little used outside
> > > Economics, and the word "accumulator" is more common in hardware,
> > > software, etc.  Is "cumulated" being used intentionally or would
> > > you accept a patch to change it to "accumulated"?
> > 
> > Hmm.. is ‘downstream’ a native speaker of English, or did he/she
> > look it up in a dictionary..?
> 
> I am a native Kansas speaker and using "cumulate" there reads as
> a very unusual wording to me.

Kansas sounds ‘native’ enough.. ;-)

> > Although not very common, I believe that ‘cumulated’ rather than
> > ‘accumulated’ is correct in this instance. 
> 
> In my experience the reverse is true.  (Regardless of the correctness
> of either.)  I have never heard "cumulate" used.  But "accumulate" is
> very commonly heard.

As in riches, sediments, spouses, maybe.. touch base with dear old
Webster on this one..

> Like "kempt" and "couth" I only assume exist because "unkempt" and
> "uncouth" exist.  But I never hear them used. :-) 

Actually, both are ‘back-formations’.. when someone jocularly created
them from ‘unkempt’ and ‘uncouth’..

> (Destructible, indestructible.  Flamable, inflamable.

tsk tsk.. none of that on this list.. should be flammable, inflammable.. 

> Driveway, parkway.  I will be the first to admit that it is a terrible
> language.)

You said it.. ;-)

> > In any case, one should also keep in mind that in many dialects of
> > spoken English there is no phonetic difference beteween
> > ‘accumulated’ and ‘cumulated’ because native speakers more often
> > than not would just drop (slide over) the unstressed ‘schwa’ at the
> > start of ‘accumulated’.

> The very fact that you and I are on completely opposite sides

I wouldn't go that far..

> of this observation tells me that the use is problematic and should be
> avoided regardless of whether either is correct or incorrect. 

I think that was also my point.. either word strikes me as rather
unsuitable.. maybe something along the lines of ‘append’ would be more
in keeping with the context..?

> They probably should be reworded.  Certainly the current "cumulate"
> phrasing causes me pause upon reading.

Me too, quite honestly, and it makes me wonder who the original tech
writer was and if she/he was just another ignorant foreigner :-) or had
good reason to use ‘cumulate‘ in the first place...

> > Just my 2 cents.
> 
> Me too.  :-)

Hmm.. 2+2+2 = 6¢ .. still counting..

I'm really not so sure now.. Perhaps it was all a case of my not really
knowing how to spell ‘accumulate’ properly.. Sorry for the noise.

cj