I wouldn’t use Microsoft as any kind of authority on usage - Microsoft, who arbitrarily, unilaterally decided that 2 spaces after a period is for losers.
Microsoft didn’t decide that. It’s normal typography rules. MS Word is not a typewriter.
“immortal”, it should be “iNmortal”, “in” - negates (as in “inappreciable”) so “can’t die” = “IN”- “mortal”.
But for some reason it’s spelled with two Ms (may be there’s a spelling rule for Ns before Ms?)
For years I searched the internet for info about Zelazny’s “This immortal” and I couldn’t find anything, until a few years ago I realized that I was searching for “* Zelazny * iNmortal *”…
Always should be written allways. Welcome should be written wellcome.
And immigrant should be spelled iNmigrant, the migrant that comes IN.
And immaculate should be iNmaculate: without a stain (macula → stain).
And immanent and immature and immemorial and immensurable… oh, don’t get me started!
Immobile, immoderate, immoral, etc. There appears to me a general rule that “im-” becomes the negating prefix when the word negated starts with “m.” I, at least, cannot find a a word that being “inm-” when the “in-” is negating.
That is one difference between English and Spanish, and it is probably no coincidence that this complaint was introduced by an Argentinian and a Spaniard.
The rule in Spanish is that negation is written in-, except when preceding a “p”, like imposible, improbale, impenetrable, imprevisto, impensado etc. And then a boy at school who knew this rule but did not know much English remarked that the word “input” was wrongly written. Which was right, I must admit. But input is still written input in Spanish, the rules be damned.
I was confued as to ‘chaise lounge’ vs. ‘chaise longue’. I’ve seen it spelled both ways, and I didn’t know which was the misspelling. ‘Longue’ certainly looks like it’s spelled ‘wrongue’ to me.
Turns out ‘lounge’ and ‘longue’ come from different word origins, and can both be considered correct:
The term comes from the French “chaise,” meaning “chair,” and “longue,” which is the French feminine form of “long.” But because these chairs are for lounging and because Americans are less familiar with the French spelling, we English speakers often use “chaise lounge.”
Speaking if ‘im’ and ‘in’ prefixes, I’m reminded of how ‘flammable’ and ‘inflammable’ mean the same thing for some reason. English is fun!!
Why is there/do people put an extra syllable in rigmarole?
Interesting. I took four years of French so it’s always been “chaise longue” to me. (There’s even a song by a British band called Wet Leg that was huge in the indie circuit a couple years ago called “Chaise Longue” where they pronounce the latter word as “long” instead of “lounge” to make it even more memorable that the “longue” spelling is the “correct” one.")
That is because the “in-” in “inflammable” is not a negating “in-” but an “into” “in-”: inflammable stuff is stuff where the flames can got into and get a hold, i.e., stuff that burns. I guess that the opposite of flammable would be imflammable 
Yeah I was going to mention all those other cases but drew a blank and decided to go with just “immortal”.
I’ve read that the shift to “flammable” was a practical one—too many people read “inflammable” as meaning “won’t catch fire.” After a few catastrophes, even the prescriptivists gave ground on this one.
Also spelled wrong: beautiful and cemetery. Should be beautyfull or at least beautifull and cementery. The more I think about it, the more it becomes obvious that you’re linguistically hopeless
The suffix -ful means “full”, while the suffix “less” means “less”. You’d think that if one of those two would drop a letter, it’d be the “less” one.
Then it would read hopeles! I’m in!
Me fail Spanish? That’s inposible!
Thanks for your imput contribution.
Rouge, It should be spelled Rouze. I have to look it up every time.
Exclaim → exclamation. WHERE DID THE ‘I’ GO?!?
For a second I thought that was a Dickies reference. 