18

I'm not a native speaker. Most of the time when I hear a word that starts with "in-" I think of an opposite, a negation:

  • visible – invisible
  • valid – invalid
  • dependent – independent

But I get puzzled by invaluable. This is actually like superlative, right? You have some skill that is valuable and then you have the top skill, the most precious one – the invaluable one.

Am I understanding the words valuable and invaluable in the wrong way, or is "in-" in this case something different?

Heartspring
  • 8,600
  • 6
  • 43
  • 73
KWriter
  • 355

2 Answers2

34

Valuable and invaluable are not antonyms, but the prefix in- still means not. M-W explains:

Valuable and invaluable do mean similar things, but the in- in invaluable isn't playing any tricks. It simply means "not." We think of valuable as meaning "having a great deal of value," as in "valuable jewelry" or "learned a valuable lesson."

Invaluable, on the other hand, means "valuable beyond estimation." Much like priceless, it describes something that is of such a great value that it cannot fairly be quantified.

To understand how invaluable was formed, Etymonline comes handy:

1570s, "above value, too valuable for exact estimate," from in- "not" + value (v.) "estimate the worth of" + -able. It also has been used in a sense "without value, worthless" (1630s, from in- + valuable).

Although it has been used as the antonym of valuable in the past, now that meaning has not survived.

M-W says:

While the verb value often means "to prize or esteem" (as in "I value our friendship"), it can also mean "to estimate or assign the monetary worth of" or "appraise." If something is of such a nature that its importance cannot be stated in monetary terms, that obviously makes it unable to be valued, or invaluable.

AakashM
  • 2,216
fev
  • 33,009
  • 3
    how do we explain "inflammable"? I think I got it: "able to be inflamed" – user253751 Feb 22 '23 at 17:38
  • 3
    @user253751 Correct. Read Why are not "infamous" and "inflammable" the opposite of "famous" and "flammable"?, might clear it up for you. – fev Feb 22 '23 at 17:41
  • 2
    It seems to be that English language doesn't follow very strict rules. Rather, the rules seem to be built to cater for what exists as English language. – paki eng Feb 23 '23 at 02:34
  • 8
    @pakieng Yes! The spoken language came first, then the written language, then the guys who made up the rules. – Simon Crase Feb 23 '23 at 04:32
  • One can trace this back to the Latin prefix "in" meaning "into" which can be compared with the Latin prefix "in" meaning "not" (actually from Greek "an."( – ttw Feb 23 '23 at 05:26
  • @pakieng It may be more useful to think of English having patterns rather than rules. English speakers “simply” try to match what they’re saying to patterns they’ve heard before—but because English borrows so heavily from other languages (and other reasons), there are a lot of patterns and it’s sometimes impossible for things to fit all of them, so English speakers just do their best and whatever “catches on” becomes a new pattern. This is fairly intuitive for native speakers, because they think in these patterns too. It is miserable for non-native learners, unfortunately. – KRyan Feb 23 '23 at 17:09
  • 1
    @SimonCrase Well, in this case English wasn't necessarily at fault. Inflammable means flammable/can combust in French. French doesn't have the word flammable for some reason (nothing seems inherently "wrong" with it, it just doesn't exist). To denote flameproof, you have "ininflammable" - yes, double ins/ not not. So at least for this word, blame whatever language originally sourced the mess (French? Latin?). – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Feb 23 '23 at 20:41
  • 1
    Consider that price and worth are near-synonyms, but priceless and worthless are exact opposites. English is weird sometimes. – Darrel Hoffman Feb 23 '23 at 21:03
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica Correction: Inflammable means able to be inflamed. According to Cassell's New Latin Dictionary, inflammare means to kindle or to set fire to. – Simon Crase Feb 23 '23 at 23:52
  • @KRyan true that. I am not a native English speaker and I can say very confidently that it was much easier to learn it reading books and watching TV than learning grammar at school. – paki eng Feb 24 '23 at 16:56
0

Invaluable - not valuable. If you brought something that was a fake or worth $0, would it not be invaluable? Like a fake coin would be invaluable.

Kkimme
  • 1
  • Invaluable vs Unvaluable - maybe the difference is there and why you are getting confused. – Kkimme Dec 28 '23 at 03:09
  • Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center. – Community Dec 28 '23 at 03:14