Rejector or rejecter?

[lesmw0sec]

Originally Posted by G6Tanuki

Additionally, us RF-types talk of stages like amplifier, tuner, receiver, transmitter, filter, multiplier, mixer - but also of an oscillator a modulator and a detector.

The one thing consistent about the English language is its inconsistency.

A bit like 'standards' for connectors, formats and anything to do with software then!

[Lucien Nunes]

An implementation of a physical property tends to take -or. Thus; resistance, inductance, capacitance, reluctance give us resistor, inductor, capacitor, reluctor. Transistor is merely a contraction of transfer-resistor and thus obeys. I believe these were American in origin, superseding the old British practice of using the quantity itself to name the component e.g. 'fit a 100 ohm resistance.' Impedance got left behind, as I am not aware of the generalised passive device *impedor. But we have transformer, converter, rectifier since there are no properties *transformance, *convertance, *rectifiance.

Terms in common usage outside electronics carry over their own history and rules and don't necessarily obey this principle.

['LIVEWIRE?']

My only comment about all of this is that I've felt for many years that many American Spellings -e.g. color, flavor, & thru, to name but three, are more logical than the English ones.

[AC/HL]

That's British, not English. As they say, "two countries divided by a common language"

[Mike Phelan]

Originally Posted by 'LIVEWIRE?'

My only comment about all of this is that I've felt for many years that many American Spellings -e.g. color, flavor, & thru, to name but three, are more logical than the English ones.

Many of these were originally English - cf many old Dickens' books.
Rejector for me!
Interesting that condensers became capacitors in the 1960's here, but not when they were used in car ignition.