View previous topic | View next topic

in- prefix

Page 1 of 1

mckeonj
724593.  Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:59 pm Reply with quote

I don't think that we have done this in I series, though it has been done in previous threads.
Any way, for starters:
inflammable .v. flammable
inlikely, why not?

 
MinervaMoon
724601.  Wed Jun 30, 2010 2:04 pm Reply with quote

I'm not sure if you're proposing "inlikely" as an antonym for "likely", but that wouldn't be the same way that flammable and inflammable are related. The "in-" in "inflammable" isn't a negating prefix. It's taken from the Latin in (in, on) + flamma (flame), so put together means "to set on fire".

Hence the famous Dr. Nick line:
"Inflammable means flammable? What a country!"

 

Page 1 of 1

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group