A quick scan of the OED suggests that the terms are mutually interchangeable. They both exist because there is more than one way of forming adjectives. Evidently in this case neither has been able to fully drive the other out of use (though I'd reckon 'treasonous' is winning at the moment).
It may be that the two adjectives are formed from different words. The Latin derived -ous suffix is principally (though not exclusively) a means of adjectivizing nouns, whilst the French derived -able adjectivizes verbs. There is a verb 'treason', though it's rare now, and perhaps that explains the existence of 'treasonable'. However, the OED says its derived from the noun. There is also 'treasonful', which again doesn't seem to have a significant difference in meaning from the others.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
A quick scan of the OED suggests that the terms are mutually interchangeable. They both exist because there is more than one way of forming adjectives. Evidently in this case neither has been able to fully drive the other out of use (though I'd reckon 'treasonous' is winning at the moment).
It may be that the two adjectives are formed from different words. The Latin derived -ous suffix is principally (though not exclusively) a means of adjectivizing nouns, whilst the French derived -able adjectivizes verbs. There is a verb 'treason', though it's rare now, and perhaps that explains the existence of 'treasonable'. However, the OED says its derived from the noun. There is also 'treasonful', which again doesn't seem to have a significant difference in meaning from the others.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject