Is there a consistent rule when you double the n's ?
1 Answer
This has to with how these words are derived
innovation = in + novation
1540-50; < Latin innovātus past participle of innovāre to renew, alter, equivalent to in- in-2 + novātus (novā(re) to renew, verbal derivative of novus new + -tus past participle suffix)
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/innovate
whereas
renovation = re + novation
1400-50; late Middle English (adj.) < Latin renovātus (past participle of renovāre), equivalent to re- re- + nov(us) new + -ātus -ate1
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/renovate?s=t
so innovation has two n's because the prefix and root both have n
-
1
-
You probably need to refer to some etymological source to support your answer.– user5267Nov 8, 2016 at 16:55
-
1Innovation: etymonline.com/index.php?term=innovation&allowed_in_frame=0 - Renovation: etymonline.com/index.php?term=renovation&allowed_in_frame=0– user5267Nov 8, 2016 at 17:01
-
1@Andrew "Indeed" derives from "in deed" so roughly equivalent, but via Anglo-Saxon instead of Latin– equesNov 8, 2016 at 17:02
-
A rule of thumb I learned is that, while suffixes often affect the spelling of the root word, prefixes (almost?) never do. Nov 8, 2016 at 21:57