Some interesting (things about) words

"I've found a problem with the English language; I need an entomologist."
"I think you mean an etymologist."
"No, it's a bug, not a feature."

There are quite a number of words in the English language (and no doubt others too, but I haven't explored those in so much detail) which are clearly opposites, but of words which don't themselves exist (or at least, not with the meaning which would result in the original word).

Here are some examples:

• disgruntled - someone who is happy and content ought to be gruntled
• dismantle - once you put it back together again, you should mantle it
• disappointed/ing - although someone can be appointed, that's not the opposite of being disappointed
• invalid - someone may be disabled, but that doesn't mean they're not valid
• impetuous - if you're careful and cautious about things, does that make you petuous?
• incognito - can you be recognised more easily if you're cognito?
• iniquity - is an iquity something that's just and fair?
• innocent - so, are guilty people nocent?
• interminable - if something does end soon, is it terminable?
• nonchalant - if you're not so carefree and casual, maybe you're chalant
• incessant - if it doesn't happen that often, it must be cessant
• ineffable - if you can comprehend it, is it effable?

And of course the classic example:

• inflammable - does it burn, or not?

These words are not opposites of anything, but still indicate the non-existence of other words

• (im)plausible - how do you plause something?
• renovate - was the thing novated in the first place?
• replenish - must you already have plenished it?
• regale - can you gale someone?
• remonstrate - did you monstrate previously?

Some words do exist, but not with the corresponding meaning…

• repair - is this only for Bluetooth devices?
  • On that note, the difference between (ir)reparable and (ir)repairable is interesting…

Have you ever thought about things which have several attributes you want to mention, and what order you would (almost?) automatically mention them in?

For example:

• A big red car, or a red big car?
• A blue old boat, or an old blue boat?
• A canvas square bag, or a square canvas bag?
• A pretty English village, or an English pretty village?

It turns out that there is a rule for this sort of thing (not that I think anyone gets taught it in school - possibly in English lessons for non-native speakers?):

1. opinion
2. size
3. age
4. shape
5. colour
6. origin
7. material
8. purpose

• Size comes before colour, therefore it's a big red car.
• Age comes before colour, so it's an old blue boat.
• Shape comes before material, so it's a square canvas bag.
• Opinion comes before origin, so it's a pretty English village.

There are, of course, exceptions, but they are surprisingly uncommon - ask the big bad wolf :)

Go up
Return to main index.