# Grammer/useage question **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 28, 2011, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammer-useage-question/583581 "2011-05-28T17:16:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![KlondikeGeoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3e96dc/32.png) [@KlondikeGeoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KlondikeGeoff)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammer-useage-question/583581/1 "2011-05-28T17:16:02Z")
Been musing about antonyms and why the difference between the prefix “un” and “im.” As why “possible” and “impossible”, and “balanced” and “unbalanced,” for example. Is there any rule regarding this? How did such prefixes come about? Latin roots, or what? ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammer-useage-question/583581/2 "2011-05-28T20:55:33Z")
When you’re through with those words, try “flammable” and “inflammable” Or “valuable” and “invaluable.” ---
**Author:** ![\_mostly\_Harmless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/9d8465/32.png) [@\_mostly\_Harmless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_mostly_Harmless)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammer-useage-question/583581/3 "2011-05-28T21:36:00Z")
Shot in the dark here but the examples with “im/in” seem to have not only come from Latin (well really medieval French) but were actually made in Latin. What I mean is that maybe examples where we use “un” are for words that we didn’t inherit from Latin or did so more recently, whereas examples with “in”, such as “possible” vs. “impossible” were already present in Latin when it bequeathed them to it’s daughter languages. Mostly though, there’s not much rhyme or reason to it. (note: I’m taking “im-” and “in-” to be the same underlying suffix which is changed based on the phonological environment in the surface word). ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammer-useage-question/583581/4 "2011-05-29T02:04:53Z")
The etymologies vary, depending upon which [un-](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/un-) and which [in-](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in-) you’re talking about. But, for the most part with the examples you’ve given, _un-_ comes from German, _in-_ comes from Latin (sometimes through French). Also, it’s _grammar_ and _usage_. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![KlondikeGeoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3e96dc/32.png) [@KlondikeGeoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KlondikeGeoff)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammer-useage-question/583581/5 "2011-05-29T20:22:49Z")
> [@KneadToKnow](#): > > TAlso, it’s _grammar_ and _usage_. 🙂 I know, I know, I type fast without thinking, expecting spell check will pick up the goofs. i realize now it does not seem to work in the thread title. so it goes. And **panache45** , I always love those two words. What started all this was the question was posed by my Japanese wife. Even having lived here for more than 50 years, she still asks why about English. My only response is, “That is jut the way it is.” Thanks all, for the info. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammer-useage-question/583581/6 "2011-05-31T13:13:50Z")
Apparently, “unpossible” (spelled “vnpossible” since in older days v and u had different rules) is actually a real English word, so using it doesn’t necessarily mean that you fail English. > **[Most accurate English Translation](https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/most-accurate-english-translation.37565/page-7#post-988434)** > > That is quite a statement to make! I am no brilliant scholar by any means but I do know one thing, things that are different are not the same! Let us... ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammer-useage-question/583581/7 "2011-05-31T13:57:58Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > When you’re through with those words, try “flammable” and “inflammable” Or “valuable” and “invaluable.” Because “in-” can be used as an intensifier: > [@OED](#): > > in-, prefix4 > of Germanic origin, prefixed to Old English and Middle English adjs., with intensive force. In origin akin to in- prefix1, with the sense ‘inly’, ‘intimately’, ‘thoroughly’, and hence ‘exceedingly’, ‘very’. Examples: Old English indryhten most noble, infród very wise, inhold thoroughly loyal; Middle English inred deep red. (On this prefix in the cognate langs., see Hœfer ‘Das intensive in’, in Germania, new ser. III. 61.) Thus, “invaluable” means “very valuable.” “Inflammable” comes from “inflame,” which uses the more common version of “in-” meaning “to put into a state.” ---
**Author:** ![Wheelz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wheelz/32/5718_2.png) [@Wheelz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wheelz)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammer-useage-question/583581/8 "2011-05-31T15:51:21Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > Thus, “invaluable” means “very valuable.” I always took “invaluable” to refer to something that literally cannot be assigned a value. Even, say, a diamond that’s worth 100 billion dollars in not _in_valuable, because its _value_ is 100 billion dollars. But a one-of-a-kind diamond so rare and special that nobody can determine its comparable worth truly is invaluable. Or “Your friendship is invaluable to me” means “I couldn’t possibly put a price on our friendship.” ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammer-useage-question/583581/9 "2011-05-31T16:09:15Z")
> [@Wheelz](#): > > I always took “invaluable” to refer to something that literally cannot be assigned a value. Even, say, a diamond that’s worth 100 billion dollars in not _in_valuable, because its _value_ is 100 billion dollars. > But a one-of-a-kind diamond so rare and special that nobody can determine its comparable worth truly is invaluable. > > Or “Your friendship is invaluable to me” means “I couldn’t possibly put a price on our friendship.” That’s more accurate than “very valuable,” but even then in- is still being used as an intensifier. The thing being described is _so_ valuable that it can’t be valued easily on the scales we typically deal with. That’s definitely a different meaning from simply “not valuable.” ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2011, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammer-useage-question/583581/10 "2011-05-31T16:14:01Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > Apparently, “unpossible” (spelled “vnpossible” since in older days v and u had different rules) is actually a real English word, so using it doesn’t necessarily mean that you fail English. > > [http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1038845](http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1038845) Not only that, but “imbalance” is a commonly used noun and “imbalanced” isn’t an unheard of adjective.