It’s bullshit that the opposite of “impeachable” is “unimpeachable” instead of “peachable”
It’s because the im isn’t a prefix but part of the word. (It was originally spelt empeche)
Ackshully:
Looking at the etymology, impeach is from old-french “empecher”, and “em” was an alternative form of the old-french prefix “en”.
And “empecher” is itself is derived from the late latin “impedicare”, which uses the Latin prefix “im” from which the French prefix comes. And is prefixed to “predica”.
So it it is a prefix.
Of course, the latin (and French) prefixes aren’t used to indicate opposite meaning, like “in” often is. But that’s just yet more bullshit.
It’s basically from back in the day when there were still dinosaur peaches large enough to contain a badly-behaving consul.
To be fair it was a prefix in the Latin word that it’s ultimately derived from. We still treat it a little like a prefix when we use the im- part of the related “import” like a prefix, as we also have “export” and “transport”
deleted by creator
It’s bullshit that the opposite of “important” is “unimportant” instead of “portant”
Should be exportant, obviously
disportn’t
disportn’t’ve
And “portant” to me sounds very similar to urgent which would make important a better negative / opposite.
Also, “gruntled” should be the opposite of “disgruntled”.
It is, check the OED.
Well I’ll be damned. I’ve used it as a word regardless, lol, but my spell check still hasn’t gotten the memo apparently.
I find this whole conversation whelming.
Stay whelmed.
So, would you say you’re more gruntled now?
You’re not fully gruntled till you’re zestfully gruntled.
deleted by creator
And something that has not been debunked is still bunk.
Now do flammable!
Inflammable means flammable? What a country!
Ehh, at least we don’t randomly assign every noun one of three genders, and have to memorize them all in order to use the correct form of “the” when speaking about it.
Just wait until you hear about declension
Did that just happen?
These are called orphaned negatives and English has loads of them. A great article about them is here: https://stephenliddell.co.uk/2021/03/17/a-gruntled-look-at-orphan-negatives/
As a slight tangent, a similar peculiarity in English (which I don’t know of a name for) is where you can use the opposite words for similar actions, e.g. you can chop a tree down and then chop it up.
Not exactly the same, but that also reminds me of autoantonyms or Janus words. The word dust can be used to describe adding dust or removing dust, for example.
Great link! I love the little story in there.
I actually use “shevelled” alongside many other words which to my mind “should logically exist” - for example, at the weekend I dismantled and then remantled a wall in my garden.
Good one, and you now have a mantled wall!
Contronyms is another great one. English is so tuitive.
The most consistent thing about English is how inconsistent it is!
Which is to be expected when you have a Germanic language that is so heavily influenced by Latin languages.
Well you guys can peach me any day you’d like. 👄
🍑
u gotsed peached
Reminds me of that Doofenschmirtz line: “Ah, Perry the Platypus… As always, your timing is impeckable. And by that I mean COMPLETELY PECKABLE!”
expeachable
How do you peach someone?
Carefully
Because im is not a typo of un
Impossible
Not to be rude but you meant to write: unpossible
Peachy!
It’s bullshit that “colonel” is pronounced with an R sound, but “kernel” isn’t pronounced with an “olo” sound.
