When next you dare to presumptuously impugn a word that has escaped your intellectual crosshairs, you ought not to publish your banal and inane musings to a university audience who might deem you incompetent to adjudicate upon such matters.
Before we undertake to delineate the incoherencies of your half-baked treatise, shall we indulge in the 'extravagance' of referencing recognized authority regarding your claim?
We shall. Let it be stated that the Oxford English Dictionary traces the root of the English word 'edible' to the Latin feminine adjective edibilis which is related to the verb edere: these words surprisingly (to some) mean 'fit to be eaten' and 'to eat,' respectively. For the gratification of those who do not tolerate such highfalutin lingual miscegenation, the Oxford English Dictionary also includes the Teutonic-Anglocentric entry: 'eatable' (which entry clearly serves to break asunder the scoliotic backbone of the author's assertion and premise: 'eatable' currently is not a word and ought to be).
Please, in none of this banter, take offense: we bring you glad tidings. The future you envisioned, and of which you preached, and for the cause of which you proselytized, is now come. In fact, according to the OED, this future has been realized since the year of our Lord, 1483.
Your work is done. The cause you have championed is victorious and you have earned your rest.
Before we close, let us address one more issue that begs a remedy. We must assume that when the author forged forward with new word forms of his own he did so with the utmost philologic altruism. We laud creativity and bravery in one's quest to swell our vocabularies while simultaneously seeking to exterminate such an historical impurity as 'edible.' He is a better man than each of the authors.
Michael Pope, Collegetown, Pa.
Jason Knapp, Salem, Ore.
Benn Fronk, Houston, Texas