"instal" is a bad spelling for "install". Contrast "pal" and "pall". "instal" with one "l" looks like it should have a short "a".
"instal"
Actually, I prefer spellings like "instal, instil, fulfil, appal". :) I think the <l>→<ll> reform in American English was implemented in a messy and inconsistent way: it was only applied where the stressed syllable could function as a separate word (for example, "stall, still, fill, pall"), leaving us with "propel, impel, compel, control, extoll"; and even accepting this criterion, we still have two glaring exceptions: "annul, until", from "null, till".
<<Actually, I prefer spellings like "instal, instil, fulfil, appal". :) I think the <l>→<ll> reform in American English was implemented in a messy and inconsistent way: it was only applied where the stressed syllable could function as a separate word (for example, "stall, still, fill, pall"), leaving us with "propel, impel, compel, control, extoll"; and even accepting this criterion, we still have two glaring exceptions: "annul, until", from "null, till".>>
Well then you're pretty ignorant of English orthography then. "al" suggests it should rhyme with "pal". Compare "Al" vs. "all", "Cal" vs. "call" and "pal" vs. "pall" each of which are contrasting pairs. Hence the spelling "instal" rather than "install" is stupid as it should rhyme with "pal" rather than "pall".
Well then you're pretty ignorant of English orthography then. "al" suggests it should rhyme with "pal". Compare "Al" vs. "all", "Cal" vs. "call" and "pal" vs. "pall" each of which are contrasting pairs. Hence the spelling "instal" rather than "install" is stupid as it should rhyme with "pal" rather than "pall".
Instal with one L just looks odd to me and most likely I would regard it as a spelling mistake. I know that the British use install for the verb but use instalment for the noun. The same with fulfill, fulfill the verb and fulfilment for the noun. It's not at all common in American English.
There is no reason for those words to have a double LL, they're just there because someone thought it would look “pretty”, I myself just find it stupid to add letters just for the sake of doing it, it makes no sense (like everything else) just because according to them it looked "better". Seriously whoever invented English had no idea what they we're doing.
The thing is that the current English orthography is such that while there are often recognizable patterns present, there are no real rules that hold in any given case or which can even be necessarily guessed at; while there may be rules that work in some word classes, they rarely apply across the board.
Dhy thing iz dhat dhy kurrent ingglisj oarthógraffi iz sutj dhat hwail dheer aar offen rêkkognáizebel patternz prezzent, dheer aar no rial ruulz dhat hoold in anni given kees oar hwitj kan yven by nêssesérili gesd at; hwail dheer mei by ruulz dhat wurk in sum wurd klassiz, dhei reerli eplái ekrós dhy boord.
Dhy thing iz dhat dhy kurrent ingglisj oarthógraffi iz sutj dhat hwail dheer aar offen rêkkognáizebel patternz prezzent, dheer aar no rial ruulz dhat hoold in anni given kees oar hwitj kan yven by nêssesérili gesd at; hwail dheer mei by ruulz dhat wurk in sum wurd klassiz, dhei reerli eplái ekrós dhy boord.
<<Actually, I prefer spellings like "instal, instil, fulfil, appal". :) I think the <l>→<ll> reform in American English was implemented in a messy and inconsistent way: it was only applied where the stressed syllable could function as a separate word (for example, "stall, still, fill, pall"), leaving us with "propel, impel, compel, control, extoll"; and even accepting this criterion, we still have two glaring exceptions: "annul, until", from "null, till".>>
How about just abolishing the final "ll" entirely, e.g. "fil", "bel", "yel", "sel", "dul" etc.? There's absolutely no need for these words to have a double "l" at the end of them.
How about just abolishing the final "ll" entirely, e.g. "fil", "bel", "yel", "sel", "dul" etc.? There's absolutely no need for these words to have a double "l" at the end of them.