Inflammable.
Once the preferred word to mean “Catches fire easily” as in “Inflammable Liquid”.
Flammable.
Now the preferred word for something that easily catches fire. This is a fairly recent addition to the English language.
Uncanny vs. Canny.
I once read somewhere that these words essentially mean the exact same thing in the English language–strange and unusual, I would assume.
What other words in the English language seem to negate each other, but actually mean the exact same thing?
Please realize that these are the only two words that I could come up with off the top of my head at the moment. Please also realize that I am aware of the fact that it is a good idea to put cites in your OP, so people can check up on your information if necessary. The only problem is I don’t know where I heard the Canny v. Uncanny thing. And I thought Cecil Adams did a piece on flammable v. inflammable. Only I can’t find that item either–anywhere in his archives:(. Oh, well. If I find anything else useful, I’ll put it here first chance I get :).
Whoops. Irregardless isn’t a word, but a common English mistake that’s been written up in grammars for the last 20 years. It’s “irrespective” or “regardless”. So in a way, you’ve given the OP an interesting example of how two words can mean the same thing, but seeming sound different.
Irregardless is a word, although you are right about its etymology. It is informal. Irregardless vs. regardless is as admissable in this question as duh vs. no duh.
The word exists in the sense that people understand it. It doesn’t, in three respects:
It’s twaddle created by English speakers, unfamiliar with body of educated English speech, who think that more syllables somehow make one sound educated. (Everyone has said this word in normal speech, but saying it doesn’t mean it isn’t a mistake.)
Merriam-Webster says to use “regardless” instead.
If I call someone a bumbletongue, I’m not using a word in the sense that it can be found in a dictionary, but it is in the sense that it can be readily understood. This doesn’t prove that “irregardless” or “bumbletongue” are correct. Bumbletongue, in fact (a word I just made up), is MORE legitimate than irregardless, because it wasn’t created by mistake, and doesn’t mean exactly the same as another, simpler, shorter, and well-understood word that already exists in the English language.
The objection is not from a purist perspective, but rather simply seeking to avoid duplicate and superfluous words.
I understand your points. I maintain that it is a word because AHD has it as an entry, even if it does say Informal or Nonstandard and put a lengthy usage note about it. I agree that it was made by mistake, and that it is useless and probably deleterious to communication - I don’t think that makes it not exist, though. Here’s an excerpt from Merriam-Webster’s usage note on irregardless:
The OP wanted pairs of words like inflammable and flammable. These strike me as just as superfluous.
