Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Why are not infamous and inflammable the opposite of famous and flammable, like incomplete, inactivity, inappropriate and so on?

share|improve this question
7  
What, inflammable means flammable? What a country! –  Stein G. Strindhaug Dec 15 '10 at 12:59
2  
English is both ingenious and intuitive; however, the genious and tuitive among us must struggle along. –  rajah9 Jan 10 at 21:08
    
Also: invaluable –  Benubird May 1 at 14:22
add comment

3 Answers 3

up vote 13 down vote accepted

The New Oxford American Dictionary reports the following definitions for in-:

in- 1
prefix
1. (added to adjectives) not: inanimate | intolerant.
2. (added to nouns) without; lacking: inadvertence | inappreciation.

in- 2
prefix in; into; toward; within: induce | influx | inborn.

Looking at the origin of infamous, and inflammable, I read the following:

infamous
ORIGIN late Middle English: from medieval Latin infamosus, from Latin infamis (based on fama 'fame').

inflammable
ORIGIN early 17th century: from French, or from Latin inflammare (see inflame).

In both the cases, the words are not built adding the prefix in- to existing words.

share|improve this answer
1  
but I could argue that they are indeed built by adding the suffix in- to existing words :) –  user733 Aug 22 '10 at 22:15
6  
You are right user733 (except that it is a prefix, not a suffix). They are actually built using the prefix in- (even if English borrowed the whole word including the prefix). It is just that there are two prefixes that look like "in", and both came from Latin, and both were the source of these two words we borrowed. In both cases it is in #2 from kiamlaluno's NOAD quotation. This morpheme in is etymologically the same in that the English prefix en comes from, in words like "enable", "enclose", "encrypt", etc. –  Kosmonaut Aug 23 '10 at 3:25
5  
Just to confuse things even more, in french the word for nonflammable is ininflammable, with the two different prefixes used one before the other. –  ogerard Apr 24 '11 at 7:11
1  
That is exactly what happens in Italian, with ininfiammabile. –  kiamlaluno Feb 21 '12 at 23:35
add comment

(Just to be contrarian.)

  1. The word infamous is the opposite of famous! Just as the opposite of reputed is disreputed rather than obscure, and the opposite of hot is cold rather than not hot, the opposite of famous (having "good" fame) is infamous (having "bad" fame, having infamy, ill-famed).

  2. The word "flammable" is newer than inflammable and does not exist, for instance, in Indian English. Historically, the only word was inflammable, dating to at least the 16th century. "Flammable" did not exist. Note that we still say inflammatory speeches not *flammatory speeches, inflammation of the skin not *flammation of the skin, etc. (However, flammation "exposure to fire" actually exists in the OED and is marked as obsolete, the only quote dating to 1646.)
    The word "flammable" was invented around 1813, but it didn't catch on, and some time in the 19th century was pretty much dead: The 1913 Webster's dictionary marks the word "flammable" as obsolete. Unfortunately (IMHO), this word was revived after World War II. (See this letter. More precisely, the word flammability was revived, and then "flammable" followed.)
    The OED entry for flammability is:

flammaˈbility, n.
= inflammability n. Revived in modern use to avoid the possible ambiguity of inflammability, in which the prefix in- might be taken for a negative (in- prefix3).

In my opinion, the word flammable was unnecessary: there's not much confusion possible in seeing, on a gas/petrol tanker, the words "Warning: Highly inflammable". It seems to me there's more confusion about the meaning of inflammable when the word "flammable" exists, than when it doesn't. But where "flammable" is already common enough, it's safe—and recommended—to use it.

share|improve this answer
3  
Hot and Cold are on a spectrum where it can be logically said that the opposite of one end of the spectrum is its counterpart at the other end equidistant from some midpoint of that spectrum. Famous and infamous are not the same; both are famous but one is good fame and one is bad fame. I don't think it really makes sense to talk about them in terms of "opposites". –  Mr. Shiny and New 安宇 Feb 9 '12 at 19:24
    
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇: "Famous" and "infamous" are also on a similar spectrum: the midpoint (like "neutral temperature" in case of hot/cold) would be obscurity. I don't see the difference you speak of: is it just the existence of a word ("fame") for being at the extreme of the spectrum, unlike no word for extreme temperature? [If a spectrum denotes "how hot" something is, then something "hot" could be said to have a +ve value and something "cold" a -ve one. Similarly a spectrum denoting how much of a good opinion the world has about someone has "famous" corresponding to +ve and "infamous" to -ve.] –  ShreevatsaR Mar 2 '12 at 15:07
    
It's more of a two-dimensional spectrum: One dimension for well-known vs. obscure, and one dimension for +ve vs. -ve. –  Dan Oct 20 '12 at 23:29
    
@Dan: Why isn't that the same for hot and cold? You could say: one dimension for extreme temperature vs. normal, and one dimension for positive vs. negative. –  ShreevatsaR Oct 21 '12 at 4:03
1  
Your reputed example works, but I'm also not sure about hot vs cold. The question is about how the modifier -in has two different senses - you don't really say un-hot or in-hot or dis-hot at all, regardless of whether or not it means something other than cold. –  Hannele Jun 14 '13 at 16:05
show 7 more comments

The folklore with the term "flammable" was that it had to be invented precisely because people read "inflammable" as "won't burst into flame" (and granted, "inflame" really isn't a word you get to hear everyday). The blame should be apportioned to the safety people I suppose. :)

share|improve this answer
11  
Ultimately, it means that no company or person should ever use the word inflammable under any circumstances, because in any situation where it is crucial enough to mention, you don't want to leave any doubt :) Stick with flammable and nonflammable. –  Kosmonaut Aug 23 '10 at 12:39
2  
On a personal note, "flammable" grates on my ears. :) If I were to address a bunch of foremen and construction workers, however, I would grit my teeth and say something like "paint is flammable!" –  user730 Aug 23 '10 at 13:02
1  
Good point. At least the words has gotten me some free beers from bets over the years. As a country of good english language education, everyone know about the prefix in- to reverse the meaning. Most people who just rely on logic are flabbergasted when they look it up and realize their defeat... =) –  user733 Aug 23 '10 at 16:30
1  
Somewhat related: The U.S. Navy does not use the word unload (take cargo out of a ship) because in can be confused with onload (put cargo aboard a ship). Rather, only the words load and off-load are used. –  cobaltduck Dec 1 '11 at 21:23
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.