The prefixes a-, in-, and un-, to say nothing of non-

Before we get to prefixes, I want to tell you about an exchange I had recently with our blogger friend Yorkshire Pudding.

In some of his recent posts he used the term The Plague in reference to you-know-what. I told him in a comment that every time he had mentioned The Plague in the past week it had startled me because, although I am not narcissistic in any way (yeah, right), I thought he was referring to me.

He replied as follows:

Sorry for any confusion or unintended offence caused, Sir Robert. However, my legal advisory team point out that you do not have exclusive use of the term "plague". Perhaps it would be simpler to change your blog title to "Rhymes With Vague" or "Doesn't Rhyme With Potato".

Fond regards,
Damnable Pudding

I just want to get your opinion. What do you think of his suggestion?

I would tell you what I think of it, but this is a family-friendly blog.

I’m kidding. I laughed.

Now on with the post.

Adding the prefix a- in front of a word negates it, turning the word into its opposite. Atypical means not typical, asymmetrical means not symmetrical, apolitical means not political. Since theism means belief in God, an atheist is someone who believes there is no God. If Gnostic means having knowledge, knowing, then an agnostic is someone who doesn't know.

The prefix in- also means “not”, as in indivisible (not divisible), ineligible (not eligible), inconceivable (not conceivable), indecisive (not decisive), intolerant (not tolerant), incredible (not credible), inconvenient (not convenient), and so forth.

When the word being modified begins with certain consonants, however, the prefix in- is changed into a double consonant. To name a few examples, illogical, illegible, illegitimate, illicit, immodest, immaterial, immortal, irreverent, irresponsible, irredeemable. Hillary Clinton especially liked irredeemable.

Something different happens if the word begins with p. If something is not possible we don’t say inpossible or ippossible, we say impossible. Same thing goes for improper (not proper), imprecise (not precise), impolite (not polite), impenetrable (not penetrable), impermissible (not permissible), impervious (not pervious) —- yes, friends, something can be pervious. Look it up.

And sometimes when we want to say that something is the opposite of something, we use the prefix un-, as in unacceptable (not acceptable), unbelievable (not believable), unyielding (not yielding), undocumented (not documented), unlearned (not learned), unopposed (not opposed), untold (not told), unknown (not known), unworthy (not worthy).

There is a notable exception. If something can catch fire, it is either flammable or inflammable. Both words mean the same thing. To avoid/cause (pick one) confusion, if something cannot catch fire we say it is non-inflammable. Plus there are non-starter and non-negotiable.

Go figure.

I just wonder why there are so many ways to say not.

We say regardless, but all the experts agree that we should not say irregardless. There is no such word as irregardless, despite the fact that I just typed it on my keyboard.

A little thing like experts never stopped my dad (non-bio). In a burst of ignorance and creativity, he. came up with a new word. [Note. The word that means a new word is neologism. —RWP]. Throughout the part of his life that included me, I never once heard him say either regardless or irregardless. He always said — brace yourself — ilregardless.

I think that ilregardless makes every bit as much sense as impossible and impermssible. In fact, its very existence (if only in my own memory) proves it is neither.

My dad (non-bio) was some kind of genius! What kind has not been determined.