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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Consider the following words:

  • inflammable
  • invaluable

Each of these has the unusual property that its meaning is identical to its counterpart lacking the prefix. In almost all other cases, the prefix in- means "not".

Where did such exceptions originate and what are some other examples of such exceptions?

share|improve this question
Hmm... – user730 Dec 14 '10 at 7:42
Waiwai explained that there are two identical-looking prefixes in play that mean different things. Another example of two different prefixes that look identical: un-. We have words like unreal (meaning "not X") and we have words like untie (which means "reverse the action of X"). These doesn't cause much confusion because one attaches to adjectives and one attaches to verbs. – Kosmonaut Dec 15 '10 at 18:37
Hmmm... good explanation. That certainly clears things up for me. – George Edison Dec 15 '10 at 19:43
up vote 13 down vote accepted

"Inflammable" is derived from the verb inflame, which comes from in- and flame. The OED identifies the prefix as in-2, indicating the second definition of the prefix, rather than the third, which is the negation which is what you believed it to be from. I quote the right definition below:

used in combination with verbs or their derivatives, [...] with the senses ‘into, in, within; on, upon; towards, against’, sometimes expressing onward motion or continuance, [...] . (emphasis mine)

To inflame something is to set it on fire–i.e. to use motion to cause something to be in flames.

"Invaluable" does come from in- expressing negation, and thus it means not able to be valued. However, this can be interpreted two different ways—one, it is so worthless that it has no value, or two, it is so valuable that we can not put a value on it—like the concept of there being no finite number that is larger than the rest—you can always add one. The common meaning is #2, but the OED recognizes both definitions.

Neither of these examples are exceptions—the first is misleading because the two prefixes look identical, the second can be understood in two separate ways. The best way to figure these out—have a good dictionary at hand.

share|improve this answer
Thanks! That's a very clear explanation. – George Edison Dec 14 '10 at 20:57

The word 'value' has multiple meanings. One is a sense of the goodness or quality or worth or cost of the item; the other is the description of that goodness or quality or cost or worth. So when something is valuable that means it has value, but when something is invaluable it means you can't describe its value.

Generally, when people say invaluable, they mean that it is of such high value (worth) that they cannot assign a value (price or description of worth) to it, because there is no way to describe such an extreme level of value (worth). Of course, it can also mean something is so worthless that its value (description of worth) is indescribably low.

Which brings to mind other related words: priceless and worthless. They look like synonyms, but priceless means invaluable, whereas worthless means not valuable.

share|improve this answer

protected by RegDwigнt Apr 10 '12 at 11:09

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

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