Hmmm, I choose to disirregard this statement.
Even if it’s not a legit word when someone says it you know what they mean. Life it too short to spend it correcting bad grammar.
“Life is…”
You know what they meant. Big meanie.
He or she.
Ircromulent.
I’d say that “unvisible” as a hypothetical word would refer to something that has become invisible – that is, something that is not visible that once was. The “un-” prefix is often a reversing prefix – i.e. “undo”.
ETA: Actually, “become unvisible” doesn’t work then, though I feel like “unvisible” should be a verb…
Both negation prefixes, in- and un-, mean mainly the same in English. It’s just so that un- is the Germanic and in- the Romance prefix (and an- the Greek one). Since both words visible and invisible were directly borrowed from French to English and ultimately come from Latin, the word invisible makes sense in any meaning that is opposite to visible. Of course, un- is a productive prefix, so you can make new words with it at will. But still, coining a new word like unvisible just doesn’t seem terribly useful, especially as words like unseen, unapparent or imperceptible already exist.
Just to confuse the issue some more, from my days working as a chemist/chemical engineer:
flammable: a material that has a critical flash point of 80 degrees F or less.
inflammable: a material with a flash point of more than 140 degrees F.
I don’t remember the name applied to those materials between 80F and 140F
This thread is irrelevant.
I always though that, even without clear evidence, we can assume it must be that.
Well I’m no fancy chemist/chemical engineer, but I think the over-140-degrees-Fahrenheit substances are combustible, and I find the idea that there is any special difference between “inflammable” and “flammable” in chemistry rather dubious. My guess is that both flammable and inflammable apply to the substances with flash points not considered combustible.
I thought a cromulent was what the Brits ate for tea. Or is that a strumpet?
I always thought “combustible” was any material with a higher flash point.
Why do Brits orientate when they could just orient?
Some prefer tarts.
If y’all don’t mind me tangenting a bit:
Why do people think “snuck” is the past tense of “sneak”? There is no precedent:
beak -> beaked
creak -> creaked
freak -> freaked
greek -> greeked
leak -> leaked
peek -> peeked
peak -> peaked
reek -> reeked
seek -> uh, sought. Still.
Nothing like a sweet little tart to start your day, I always say.
As you quite rightly point out, there is precedent for “snought”. I support this.
From “The Condensed Chemical Dictionary” 8th Edition, page 229:
“Combustible: any substance that will burn, regardless of its autoignition point, or whether it is solid, liquid or gas.” and " … logically includes all flammable materials… however… … this term is ignored in official classifications… “, " … where the term “combustible” is restricted to those materials that are comparatively difficult to ignite and that burn relatively slowly.” etc etc
So, chemists/engineers know wherefore they speak; the guument, however…
Well yes, surely anything flammable is by definition combustible in that it can undergo combustion. I suppose my post was just meant to be about the words in situations where they’re distinct classifications.