7

I basically learnt that words that start with a 'm' or 'p' get 'im' as a negative prefix, whilst words starting with 'r' get 'ir' in such a case (irreverent, irrelevant).

However, I stumbled upon 'realistic'. I'm almost sure it is 'unrealistic'. A quick search on Google revealed 13 million hits for 'unrealistic'; 'irrealistic' on the contrary only results in 14.000 hits.

Therefore, is 'unrealistic' an exception to this rule?

8
  • 8
    The rule is bogus. You have to take the etymology into account. You would never say irready or irruly, either.
    – RegDwigнt
    Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 19:06
  • 2
    Do you say "unready"? New one to me... ;-) Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 19:10
  • 6
    Ever hear of King Æthelred (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86thelred_the_Unready)?
    – Kelly Hess
    Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 19:12
  • 2
    @jae: you miss the point. As does Kelly, actually, as Æthelred's name has nothing to do with not being ready, and everything with being ill-advised (cf. German Rat, "counsel"). My point was that whether or not unready, unround, unright, and unrude exist, you would prefer them over irready, irround, irright, and irrude any time.
    – RegDwigнt
    Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 20:00
  • 1
    "She was young and unready for motherhood."
    – apaderno
    Commented Mar 23, 2011 at 9:22

2 Answers 2

15

The word realistic is negated with the prefix un-, which is not the same as in-/im-/ir-, and is not subject to the rule regarding in-/im-/ir-. The rule that you cited is correct, but only for words that take the negative prefix in-/im-/ir- (e.g. intractable, impossible, irresponsible). Words that are negated with un- always use un- (e.g. untreatable, unbearable, unready), and never vary the second letter of the prefix.

There is no general rule that will allow you to know which words take the negative prefix un- and which take the negative prefix in-.

The forms that you find on the net with the word irrealistic are either mistakes by non-native speakers, people being clever with word-play, or possibly people creating derivations off of the specialized linguistic term irrealis.

3
  • 1
    So, basically, "Theorem: A holds whenever A holds."? Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 19:09
  • 3
    @jae, kind of. If you know that the word is negated with one of in-/im-/ir-, then you can use the OP's rule to predict which version of the prefix to use. But if you don't know whether to negate with un- or in-, then you're pretty much hosed. Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 19:15
  • 3
    +1 — excellent answer! More examples of un + r: unreasonable, unreadable, unrelated, unrated, unrhymed
    – PLL
    Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 20:47
1

Yes.

Never heard of such a rule. Or I may have forgotten about it. Never been a fan of rules about language anyway: you learn the rule and the myriad of exceptions (depending on rule and language in question)- Why not just learn the words, and be done with it?

6
  • 2
    When rules often apply, it is a good idea in my opinion to learn those instead of each single word. Of course there are exceptions, but it's useful to fall back on.
    – pimvdb
    Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 19:13
  • Yes, and why not just learn all the sentences, instead of bothering with grammar? Patterns are for the birds. Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 19:25
  • They think differently about that at my school :o)
    – pimvdb
    Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 19:48
  • I didn't learned rules (or grammer, which is rules), I just learnt the language. Just like I learn not German, I just learndit. Seriously (no, seriously seriously), I never bothered much with grammar in school (and my grades were as one would expect ;-)). We had a German-teacher who was all about comma rules; she had a catalog of rules for where to put commas, and most of the class learned those rules slavishly -- I didn't bother. I learn by... osmosis, if you will. Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 19:59
  • 1
    To put it in context: I know it's "unruly", and "not ready" and "irrelevant"... but I don't see, nor do I need, any rules behind that. So, I don't bother with them anymore. Not for the actual activity of speaking/writing. As an academic/intellectual exercise, grammar (and "rules") can be fun... but mostly by amusing oneself with the exceptions. But that's MVPO (my very personal opinion). Commented Mar 22, 2011 at 20:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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