40

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

RegDwigнt
  • 97,231
user733
  • 503

3 Answers3

38

(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.

ShreevatsaR
  • 27,572
  • 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 09 '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 02 '12 at 15:07
  • 2
    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 04:03
  • 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
  • @Hannele: I used the "hot" vs "cold" example to illustrate the meaning of "opposite"; it had nothing to do with the prefix "in". My point was that "infamous" is the opposite of "famous", just as "disreputed" is the opposite of "reputed" (both are a kind of repute: one is good repute and one is bad repute), and just as "hot" is the opposite of "cold" (both are extremes of temperature, in different directions). Under this argument, there is no different sense of "in-" here; it's still just being used for the opposite. – ShreevatsaR Jun 14 '13 at 17:03
  • My point is that your example disreputed highlights that there are at least two distinct opposites for the word (good vs bad, and known vs unknown). There isn't really a direct opposite for hot that doesn't just mean cold, and this isn't really a place where you need to demonstrate the general meaning of opposite. – Hannele Jun 14 '13 at 17:31
  • @Hannele: How does "disreputed" highlight the existence of an opposite to "famous" meaning "unknown"? Alternatively, which example highlights the "unknown" opposite? My entire argument is that "unknown" is not an opposite of "famous" (as that would be equivalent to saying that the opposite of "hot" is "at room temperature" rather than "cold", or that the opposite of "beautiful" is "plain" rather than "ugly", or that the opposite of "tall" is "medium height" rather than "short", etc.). – ShreevatsaR Jun 14 '13 at 17:37
  • 1
    But an opposite of famous is unknown. It's not a midpoint on a scale between famous and infamous, because you can be both very good and very bad at something, and also not be very well known for it. The fact that infamous has a meaning other than unknown highlights that there are two different opposites - similarly, disreputed meaning something other than not having reputation. – Hannele Jun 14 '13 at 17:40
  • @Hannele: In the answer, I made an argument why the opposite of famous is infamous, not unknown. You're basically ignoring that argument, also ignoring the examples (it's ironic that you question the need to invoke the examples, given this) and flatly stating that the opopsite is unknown, simply by assertion. I don't know what to say. :-) It is exactly my point that infamous does not mean "unknown, and disreputed does not mean "not having reputation". The argument is that just as disreputed is a valid opposite and means bad repute, infamous is a valid opposite and means bad fame. – ShreevatsaR Jun 14 '13 at 17:57
  • 1
    Yes! And I am saying that famous has two opposites - both infamous and unknown - and each has a different meaning. Consider how politics - often divided only into left and right-wing - can also be described by authoritarian vs liberal, where there are both authoritarian left-wingers and liberal right-wingers. There is more than one opposite, and they mean different things. – Hannele Jun 14 '13 at 21:01
  • @Hannele: I can agree with that actually. :-) Seems like you agree that "infamous" is an opposite of "famous" though, not just "unknown", which was the point of the "hot" vs "cold" example. I'll edit this answer later today to make that clearer. – ShreevatsaR Jun 15 '13 at 03:34
20

The New Oxford American Dictionary I had on my Mac Mini (which was the third edition, last time I checked) reported 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.

apaderno
  • 59,185
  • 3
    but I could argue that they are indeed built by adding the suffix in- to existing words :) – user733 Aug 22 '10 at 22:15
  • 11
    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 03:25
  • 11
    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 07:11
  • 3
    That is exactly what happens in Italian, with ininfiammabile. – apaderno Feb 21 '12 at 23:35
  • This doesn't explain the meaning of the prefix in- in the context of infamous. – sondra.kinsey Nov 04 '23 at 10:59
  • @sondra.kinsey There is no in- prefix in infamous. – apaderno Nov 04 '23 at 12:39
  • @apaderno: Your own answer would seem to disagree: "from Latin infamis (based on fama 'fame').", as does etymonline.com It's a Latin prefix in "infamous" just the same as its a Latin prefix in "inanimate". "In-" meaning "not" isn't usually used for new words in English. – sondra.kinsey Nov 09 '23 at 18:04
  • @sondra.kinsey That is in Latin. In English, infamous is not seen as in- followed by famous. – apaderno Nov 10 '23 at 16:52
7

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. :)

  • 15
    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
  • 4
    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!" –  Aug 23 '10 at 13:02
  • 2
    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
  • 4
    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 01 '11 at 21:23