Words people only use one form of...

What about forms which ought to be proper words meaning the opposite of the orignial word, but which aren't and don't, as "irregardless" and "inflammable?"
 
S. D. Youngren said:
What about forms which ought to be proper words meaning the opposite of the orignial word, but which aren't and don't, as "irregardless" and "inflammable?"
Click to expand...

The "in" in "inflammable" isn't a negative prefix, it's just a part of the word. (latin verb "inflammare", to catch fire).
 
What about forms which ought to be proper words meaning the opposite of the orignial word, but which aren't and don't, as "irregardless" and "inflammable?"
Click to expand...
"Irregardless" would amount to "without a lack of regard." I can think of few instances in which this word would be useful. Those who use it mean simply "without regard" and therefore are just using a word that does not mean what they think it does.

Flammable is the bastard child of inflammable, born only to save the lives of children and illiterates (if I may paraphrase Strunk).
 
You may courage us if you like, but a regular person would say "encourage" for the opposite of "discourage."

I wasn't talking about actual etymology; just about usual forms for negation: If INedible means something INappropriate to eat, INflammable "ought" to mean something that is not flammable. Something that does not readily...uh...inflame.

(Credit--or blame--for the first part of the "inflammability" thing to my husband.)
 
Nyarlathotep said:
pant, as in the singular of pants. Everyone I know has pairs of pants, I have yet to see a single pant.
Click to expand...

This is technological. There used to be two pants attached to a codpiece.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom