Wasted Potential

Also? This doesn't just happen with bound base elements! That is just total nonsense. A replaceable <e> can happen on free or bound bases, as well as on suffixes, and so can a potential <e>.

I want to write a million things, but for now, I will settle on this:

In the misled and misleading Facebook groups, there are questions and statements about a "potential <e>" – and every last one of them is just baloney.

Here's a good example of just one: "[B]ound bases (those that require the addition of an affix to form a recognisable and functioning word) often have a Latin base that, depending on the word it is contained in, may or may not require a final <e> for the spelling. An example is the Latin base <jur(e)>, meaning lawful. The potential final <e> is necessary to build the words injure, conjure or perjure, but is replaceable when building the words jury, conjuror, injurious and perjury."

NOPE! That is NOT what the "potential <e>" means, and it proves my point that those folks are woefully ignorant about orthography even as they pretend to advise others. No group expert or admin bothered to correct the false explanation.

Jiminy Potential E. Christmas.

Here's why that's just badly-made spelling sausage, and what's actually accurate:

Terms and conditions apply.