# May speakers “legally” break the rules of English? [And how does this compare with other European languages]



## Paintdrop

Ok, I’ve pondered about this question quite some time now. We’ve all heard of the words unhappy, unexcited, unsteady, unleashed, unreal, disapprove, improper, irregular, rewrite, rewritten, and reopen.

However, many of us rarely, if ever, have heard someone say the words unnice, unpolite, recelebrate, rejumped, retasted, retravel, redriven, imright, or disproud because their usage would be quite often frowned upon by the vast majority of English speakers. 

Well, my first question to you is are those words considered grammatically correct in your opinion (regardless of their awkwardness)? If not, can you please enlighten me if there were ever a reputable, standard set of rules created sometime long ago regarding how adjectives or verbs are to be connected to these following prefixes: re, un, ir, dis, im, or in? 

Otherwise, if no such rules exist, may speakers “legally” break the rules of English so to speak? That is, can we construct words such as disproud, unproud, unpolite, irnormal, redriven, or reflown, yet still be grammatically correct?  

Whether you agree or disagree, I would be highly grateful to receive feedback.  Thanks a bunch!


----------



## pob14

I don't think they're grammar rules, as such, just words constructed in a certain way due to historical reasons.

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams apparently argued over whether to say "inalienable" or "unalienable" in the Declaration of Independence.  And George Orwell created a number of new words with nonstandard prefixes in his novel _1984_ ("ungood" comes to mind), but used them precisely because they would sound unusual.

I suppose you can construct whatever word you want, and if people understand it, you'll be fine, as long as you don't mind sounding unusual.  I don't think grammar really enters into it.


----------



## PaulQ

As pob14 says, "if people understand it, you'll be fine, as long as you don't mind sounding unusual." Grammar, spelling, syntax, etc. are fine bastions of conservatism built on a past that cannot predict the future.

Unpopularative joined-together-words or spelligz that ur rong or virbs that doed not tend to follow roolz, do however distract from the idea to be conveyed though, don'tcha think?


----------



## sdgraham

Take a look at the previous thread: refudiate

I think you'll find it a good example.


----------



## PaulQ

I'm perfectly cromulent with refudiate.


----------



## Paintdrop

pob14 said:


> I suppose you can construct whatever word you want, and if people understand it, you'll be fine, as long as you don't mind sounding unusual.  I don't think grammar really enters into it.



Actually, I've come accross lots of people who aren't shy to shout out and declare "that's not a word." Some people frown on the usage of "unpolite," since impolite is what's actually listed in a dictionary. Nontheless, you are right about people having the right to construct whatever word they want if it's understandable. 

However, I was more interested in knowing if the use of these perhaps akwardly constructed words could be well argued and defended in case an English instructor, for instance, were to kindly point it out as being a grammatical mistake. Thanks for your input!


----------



## PaulQ

Paintdrop said:


> However, I was more interested in knowing if the use of these perhaps akwardly constructed words could be well argued and defended in case an English instructor, for instance, were to kindly point it out as being a grammatical mistake.


No, the only defence to usage is, "It is accepted." You cannot *create *an acceptance, "A word is not a word because you or I say it is." 

A word or phrase has to evolve through a democratic process; like evolution, millions are discarded and only one survives to breed and become common or, as we say, 'accepted.'


----------



## timpeac

Paintdrop said:


> Actually, I've come accross lots of people who aren't shy to shout out and declare "that's not a word." Some people frown on the usage of "unpolite," since impolite is what's actually listed in a dictionary. Nontheless, you are right about people having the right to construct whatever word they want if it's understandable.
> 
> However, I was more interested in knowing if the use of these perhaps akwardly constructed words could be well argued and defended in case an English instructor, for instance, were to kindly point it out as being a grammatical mistake. Thanks for your input!


What is correct or not in language all comes down to accepted usage. Grammar and vocabulary "rules" attempt to describe what people do rather than enforce usage on them (at least they should). I can think of many grammar rules which work perfectly for one language but would give something ungrammatical in another.

As such, saying "unpolite" might be understandable, and there may or may not be a deeper reason for why we ended up with "impolite" as the standard form - but as long as the weight of accepted usage is against it, "unpolite" will be viewed as an error by many (perhaps most) speakers.


----------



## Gwan

I don't think any 'rules' exist as such for your examples, no more than a  rule exists that we call the thing we cut food with a knife and not a  trombull. 

When I took a course to become a teacher of English as a Foreign Language, I remember one of the instructors saying "native speakers don't make mistakes, they only have slips". I actually don't agree with this sentiment, and think native speakers are perfectly capable of making mistakes through ignorance as well as making the grammatical or verbal equivalents of typos. However, there's a difference, of course, between deliberately playing with words and making a mistake (whatever one's opinion on the mistake issue).

<deleted remark>


----------



## Alxmrphi

As you'll see with time, there are many different areas that have their own accepted conventions.

Many dialect areas in England have alternative past participles that don't create any sort of problems, like people using past participles instead of preterite forms where I am from, or the Central-Northern English "brung" for brought. There are Americans on here that I don't even think believe these people exist because they just think they'd have to fly over and whack them over the head with a copy of "STANDARD ENGLISH: HOW TO SPEAK LIKE ME". You see massively prejudiced people here that say "If someone said that to me I'd think they were uneducated", which is a pretty much universally accepted normalism for people who are so familiar with 'book-language', which is fairly standardised across the English speaking world. I'm not saying every speaker in my area is always using a dialect form if it's non-standard, but if you went round for a week and interviewed thousands of people in colloquial circumstances, you'll find at least 50% of them using forms like "I seen", which makes other people absolutely cringe. The people who grow up where that dialect went on to become the standard language (i.e. RP area) usually can't understand that there's a divide between how people speak around them, and what is considered universally 'standard' by virtue of being the literary standard used in publishing earlier on in the history of England, whereas the rest of us are used to this "how we speak at home / how we speak at school" divide, and are therefore more tolerant of linguistic divergence.

As it turns out, the less 'book-ish' people usually are less-educated (in a realistic sense), but the language they speak is not different because they are uneducated, it's different because their linguistic input has been more closely linked to the dialect area and other colloquial speech, so they mirror regional forms in their own speech. So there are no rules, just accepted customs. If a whole city says one thing, or has a certain pronunciation, it's not going to cause a problem, whereas for someone from the other side of the world, it will cause a problem. There's no high-command to which all disagreements about language-use go to, just people quoting from grammar books, which in essence are nothing but popularised personal opinions.

Most of the new additions now come from the sort of affix manipulation on new forms, like in the OED you have "unfriend" from sites like Facebook, and other things like that.
Language and especially 'correct' language means different things to different people in different situations. In a class teaching foreigners 'correct' has a different meaning than two teenagers talking in a rural pub, or when someone is writing a paper to be published in a medical journal. People actually think there's a universal and absolute singular correctness of English, and while that idea has some sort of appeal to it, it's never been anywhere close to existing in a universal sense, and in my opinion is really an inappropriate concept in a lot of situations (as much as it's good in others).


----------



## Paintdrop

Gwan said:


> ...[w]ould you as an instructor see anything wrong with someone using the word "impolite?"


----------



## natkretep

General tendency: if your coinage is seen as motivated, it will be more likely to be accepted. There is a song I know where the lyricist uses _prideful_ (instead of _proud_). I think he was trying to make a point. That's fine in my book. And it was in a song (_ie_ something 'creative') rather than in something prosaic.


----------



## Paintdrop

PaulQ said:


> No, the only defence to usage is, "It is accepted." You cannot *create *an acceptance, "A word is not a word because you or I say it is."
> 
> A word or phrase has to evolve through a democratic process; like evolution, millions are discarded and only one survives to breed and become common or, as we say, 'accepted.'



 Yes, that sounds about right for how a word becomes accepted by the majority. However, I'm not necessarily asking if I can "create" an acceptance from the majority. What I am asking is if I could create an awkwardly constructed word like "disproud," and defend it well if challenged by a group of intellectuals?




timpeac said:


> As such, saying "unpolite" might be understandable, and there may or may not be a deeper reason for why we ended up with "impolite" as the standard form - but as long as the weight of accepted usage is against it, "unpolite" will be viewed as an error by many (perhaps most) speakers.



 Yes, I recognize and agree with you that using "unpolite" would be viewed as an error by most speakers. However, I'm specifically asking if one could put forth a well defended argument to the majority of why "unpolite" is not an erroneous word?

*@Alxmrphi

*That was a very interesting and informative post. I see you take the position that there is no such thing as "standard English." Therefore, you would find no issue at all if someone were to use repeatedly use those awkwardly constructed words? .


----------



## timpeac

Paintdrop said:


> Yes, I recognize and agree with you that using "unpolite" would be viewed as an error by most speakers. However, I'm specifically asking if one could put forth a well defended argument to the majority of why "unpolite" is not an erroneous word?


Then, no - I don't think you could. Not any more than you could decide on your own to describe the animal commonly known as "cat" by the word "dog". Language is defined by the general usage (from a descriptionist point of view) and by "accepted usage and grammar" (from a prescriptionist point of view) - which aims to reflect general usage, but in practice lags behind it.

If you do some people will care a lot (for example exam markers) and some people probably won't care at all (many people on facebook for example), the only issue will be how big your change is, and whether people still even understand what you mean.

You could argue until you're blue in the face that there is no good reason to say "impolite" instead of "unpolite" but unless the majority of speakers actually do do that it's just not relevant. As I say above, just how much people will actually _care _if you do will depend on who they are.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> *@Alxmrphi
> 
> *That was a very interesting and informative post. I see you take the  position that there is no such thing as "standard English." Therefore,  you would find no issue at all if someone were to use repeatedly use  those awkwardly constructed words? .


Did I really give off that impression with my post?  (I didn't mean to).

No, what I meant was, "Standard English" is an artificial concept that it's customary and (nowadays) necessary to know if you want any chance of impressing your peers or other people who see themselves as being in the educated/civilized world. I wouldn't say there isn't such a thing as a "Monday", but before humanity came along there were no such thing as Mondays, when our ancestors were in Africa, they didn't have Mondays, dinosaurs didn't have Mondays either. It does exist, and it's something we all live by, but essentially it's a group-ideal that we all subscribe to, not an actual "true" thing.

We have a massively rich web of variation at a lower level, which is bound together by much of society's participants by subscribing to the idea that there is a way people "should" speak. But the premise that all people speak the standard and that deviations are due to lack of educated is completely false. Many people do hold the view that all speakers should speak the standard, but that's just a classic lack of understanding about what language actually is, its origins, history and place in the world. It's nothing more than an ideal. If people are uneducated, they might not understand their rules, but dialectology is a rich and fast-moving field in linguistics and the creation of isoglosses and documented history show there is a set of areas where certain things happen, and it's not even plausible to suggest that is brought about by mass-random confusion and uneducation of speakers, but by developments and innovations in regional patterns of speech, that are usually confined to the spoken language.

I don't think you can have free-reign with your prefixes/suffixes and combine them how you wish, though if it doesn't create a problem and the idea of coming across as a standard user of the language doesn't matter, then I don't see it as a problem, but that's a small percentage of the time. I wouldn't say anyone is "dispolite", but maybe others would. What I'm saying is, essentially, that correctness is extremely subjective and context-dependent. We can't talk about breaking rules and having "illegal" language use because of the subjectivity and differences that language use can take place in.


----------



## Einstein

I agree with Alex. I also think that a lot of us invent words unconsciously without even entering into the above considerations. We often invent negatives or words with -less, -ness or -able, without asking ourselves if they are really to be found in the dictionary. After all, the dictionary can't take every conceivable context into consideration.

However (there's always a however), I sometimes get the feeling that people writing e.g. computer manuals either invent words or give new meanings to old words just to avoid the bother of looking in a dictionary to see if there's something more suitable and more comprehensible already in existence. I was flummoxed the first time I saw the expression "default settings"; I was used to hearing about mortgage defaults and wondered what the heck that had to do with factory settings!


----------



## Hugo de Toronja

Paintdrop, I'm not an academic. I'm someone who's edited texts in American English all my adult life.

Your question interests me because it has to do with a phenomenon I've noticed among American writers over the past ten years. There is, in my experience, which is, admittedly, limited to my line of work, a growing tendency among American writers toward _less_ linguistic playfulness, or what you might call "innovation."

From discussions with other editors about this phenomenon, I think there may be two reasons why American writers are less and less willing to play around with novel usages or new coinages, such as "retravel" or "recelebrate."

The first, although not necessarily most significant, reason, is that fewer and fewer American students of _all_ socio-economic levels are exposed to the kind of rigorous study of grammar, etymology, usage, rhetoric, and prosody, that gives rise not only to a desire to play with language, but the basic tools required for playing around with English in a truly clever and provocative way.

The second reason is that American writers are increasingly aware that they are writing for an _international _audience, and that their their prose must be able to sustain intelligibility across a vast, if not immeasurable, terrain of national, regional, and dialectical readings and understandings of English. In other words, these American writers feel that it is more necessary than ever to write a plain and concise kind of "standard English" that's intelligible _across the globe_.

(The phenomenon of "texting" has, of course, created its own drive for extreme concision and unorthodox spelling, but I'm not talking about informal communication. I'm talking about the sort of English that people are paid to write and [poorly] paid to edit.)

Now, America is not, of course, the English language's only center of gravity, and I've spoken with a number of editors who believe that popular English prose in India is becoming the liveliest and tastiest on the planet and that India, with its many hundreds of millions of English-speakers, will soon be the greatest source of innovation, or "playfulness," in English, and that India's standards and rules for English will ultimately become those adopted universally in the English-speaking world.


----------



## Packard

PaulQ said:


> As pob14 says, "if people understand it, you'll be fine, as long as you don't mind sounding unusual." Grammar, spelling, syntax, etc. are fine bastions of conservatism built on a past that cannot predict the future.
> 
> Unpopularative joined-together-words or spelligz that ur rong or virbs that doed not tend to follow roolz, do however distract from the idea to be conveyed though, don'tcha think?



While I was in journalism school (1966 - 1970) I once used "interface" as a verb. I received an automatic "D" for a grade for using a word in the wrong part of speech. (It was a noun.)

I received this "D" even though my professor understood it; so all was not "fine". 

I argued with my niece recently over the use of a dictionary. (She is an 11th grade English teacher.) I said that a dictionary is not the word of God, not a dictum from above, but rather a reflection of current usage.

And she rejoined that "not in 11th grade English it ain't!!"

Within that group, she argued, the dictionary is the law for to allow it to be a "reflection" would give free rein to butchering the English language.

So is it OK? It depends. (But don't invent words in my niece's English class.)


----------



## Paintdrop

Most of you have taken the viewpoint that words such as unpolite and disprove will be thought of as erroneous from the masses. However, do you think such words violate the standard rules of English? I have never come across any rules that explain which words can be connected to prefixes. 

*By the way,* the movie Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is what triggered me to spark this question. You all may easily recall the scene that went as follows: 

*Instructor: Come here, What's happening? 
*Young student: Willy Wonka's opening his factory, he's gonna let people in. 
*Instructor: Are you sure? 
*Young student: He's on the radio and he's giving lots of chocolate away!
*Instructor: Class* *dismissed!
*Young student: No no! It's only for five people. 
*Instructor: Class undismissed.
*Young Student: He hid 5 Golden Tickets and the people who finds them will win the big prize. 
*Instructor: Where has he hidden the tickets? 
*Young Student: Inside five Wonka Bars, you gotta buy Wonka bars to find them.
*Instructor: Class redismissed!
*
I didn't mean to bore anyone with that dialogue, but the main point is that both "redismissed and undismissed" aren't even in some of the most reputable dictionaries. Nevertheless, it was a clever way of the use of the English language (at least in my opinion). Perhaps the English language could  be even more beautiful than it already is if we had "free-reign" (as Alxmrphi puts it) in regards to combining our prefixes as we wish, given we're not breaking clearly defined grammatical rules.


----------



## Alxmrphi

That's the beauty of linguistic productivity, and our minds to analys a meaning and do a sort of componential-analysis to be able to understand something that we've never heard before. This happens all the time in functional shift, where we use nouns as verbs and verbs as nouns, and it's a long-standing joke to scholars of English history, you can see people complaining about something, but using words that people 50 year before them complained about for the same reason, and *they* are using words that people 70 years earlier said were "barbarisms". Some people just can't accept change. 



> However, do you think such words violate the standard rules of English? I  have never come across any rules that explain which words can be  connected to prefixes.


Exactly because there are none (which is why you haven't seen any), is the answer to your question "no", because there's nothing to be violated here.
I think you understand what the general situation is when it comes to new forms. You've sort of got to plan-ahead for an argument if you're going to express something to someone who thinks they already know English completely. Many people like to feel in control and that they possess everything they need to know to function in English perfectly (which they do), and when young people start to twist the meanings, they don't feel like they understand what is going on and those type of people react badly and often complain saying children don't know how to speak, they are the ones at fault, and just plainly miss the point that language shifts all the time. Your language as a child was different to your ancestors and they probably didn't like it either. It's a huge repeating circle of the same emotions.

Once we can demonstrate people's massive frustration in the past, with words we all categorically accept and find normal and "proper" to us, can we then see that it's just the same cycle repeating itself, with the people who understand and can comprehend the giant cog that is language change, and those who can't. It's a really interesting discussion. I'm glad you asked about this


----------



## PaulQ

I think a clue is in the fact that it is in a comedy scene - in a comedy routine, there are no rules of English - "just be funny" is the rule. 

You suggest, "Perhaps the English language could  be even more beautiful than it  already is if we had "free-reign" (as Alxmrphi puts it) in regards to  combining our prefixes as we wish."

1. Could you give, say, 5 lines written in this manner that an average person might understand? 
2. Do you think it would be a good idea if criminal laws or scientific methods were written without rules?
3. Have you considered Pidgin English or West African Krio? Languages that are loosely based on simple English but nevertheless develop their own rules. A problem is that if you have no rules, the speakers will actually create them for themselves (true!) so as to meet new situations.


----------



## timpeac

Paintdrop said:


> Most of you have taken the viewpoint that words such as unpolite and disprove will be thought of as erroneous from the masses. However, do you think such words violate the standard rules of English? I have never come across any rules that explain which words can be connected to prefixes.


No they don't violate any standard rules of English, because there aren't any. Languages aren't like a logical computer program, they are organic. As such you can't decide if something is right/acceptable based on rules. Usage decides what is right.

For example, most past verb forms end -ed. Therefore we can give a rule that you add -ed to the verb to form the past tense (note that the usage comes before the rule!) Now this is helpful to foreign speakers because if they come across a verb they didn't know before, the chances are they can form the past tense by adding -ed. However, there are many many verbs which don't form their past tense this way. If you start saying "goed" instead of "went" because of a rule which aims, imperfectly, to reflect the language then this is wrong. It's not wrong because there is anything intrinsic about it which is wrong (it's not wrong in the way 1+2=4 is wrong), it's wrong simply because most speakers do not use it.


----------



## CapnPrep

Paintdrop said:


> If not, can you please enlighten me if there were ever a reputable, standard set of rules created sometime long ago regarding how adjectives or verbs are to be connected to these following prefixes: re, un, ir, dis, im, or in?


First of all, _ir-_/_im-_(and _il_-) are allomorphs of _in-_, and there are rules about which form you need to choose. So we can say that your suggestions _imright_ and _irnormal_ are definitely "illegal". But _irright _and _innormal _(with the correct form of the prefix) still sound pretty bad, and this is because the negative prefix _in- _is more or less limited to learned roots that are clearly of Latin origin, while _un-_ is used for Germanic and thoroughly naturalized roots. So _unright_ and _unnormal _would be the "legal" way to form these negative adjectives. Of course, everyone has the right to disapprove and reject novel formations, but as native English speakers, I think we all share the intuition that _unright_ sounds better than _irright_, which sounds better than _imright_ (as a way of saying "not right").

These are just a few examples of the rules that exist, although I wouldn't describe them as "reputable, standard" and they were not "created sometime long ago". They are tendencies (which can be more or less strong) that emerge within the linguistic system of every speaker as they acquire the language. Linguists have studied and continue to study all of these prefixes quite extensively. You might be interested in reading the entries in the OED for _re-_, _dis-_, _in-_, and _un-_.

Many new forms that are well-formed according to the rules of English morphology will nevertheless be rejected because speakers also learn or decide to follow other types of rules, conscious/normative ones. These can be very precise, such as "This word is not listed in the official dictionary, so it is not valid in our Scrabble game", or they can be totally vague and subjective, like "I find this form ugly/awkward/useless/stupid/unnecessary/…, so (to me) it is not a word and nobody should use it".


----------



## SuprunP

Paintdrop said:


> Some people frown on the usage of "unpolite," since impolite is what's actually listed in a dictionary.



My dictionaries seem to be more loyal :



> *unpoˈlite*, a.
> *2*. Lacking in politeness; impolite: *a*. Of actions, conduct, etc.
> 1838 Dickens O. Twist ix, As an apology to the company for his unpolite behaviour.
> *b*. Of persons.
> OED





> *unpolite*, adj.
> impolite.
> [1640-50; UN + POLITE]
> Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary


----------



## timpeac

SuprunP said:


> My dictionaries seem to be more loyal :


Yes, but note the dates - 1838 and 1640-50. This is a perfect example of why there is no such thing as intrinsically wrong - just usage. Apparently past usage allowed this form, it's not the norm today.


----------



## Alxmrphi

timpeac said:


> Yes, but note the dates - 1838 and 1640-50. This is a perfect example of why there is no such thing as intrinsically wrong - just usage. Apparently past usage allowed this form, it's not the norm today.


Exactly!
Once we can peek back and see usages we might find strange in circulation during times gone by, it really brings home the nature of our views of the correct and "incorrect" use of language, and how subjective it can be.


----------



## SuprunP

Does it mean that some (most?) people reading C. Dickens (or someone else from the distant and not very distant past) and encountering such 'strange' words with 'strange' meanings end up genuinely feeling that he was actually wrong or do they really run through the dictionaries to find out the truth?


----------



## JulianStuart

SuprunP said:


> Does it mean that some (most?) people reading C. Dickens (or someone else from the distant and not very distant past) and encountering such 'strange' words with 'strange' meanings end up genuinely feeling that he was actually wrong or do they really run through the dictionaries to find out the truth?


Or would such writing simply be considered "illegal" today?


----------



## Egmont

SuprunP said:


> Does it mean that some (most?) people reading C. Dickens (or someone else from the distant and not very distant past) and encountering such 'strange' words with 'strange' meanings end up genuinely feeling that he was actually wrong or do they really run through the dictionaries to find out the truth?


Speaking for myself, which may not reflect most (or even some) other people, I assume that such a word was in common use at the time and move on.

My reaction may be affected by having read a lot of older English literature, from Beowulf and Chaucer in their original forms as an undergraduate through Dickens and Conan Doyle, so these words don't always look strange to me even though I'd never use them in daily conversation or in writing.


----------



## Packard

H.L. Mencken invented several words (ecdysiast, and booboise come to mind). No one has suggested that we throw him in prison for these transgressions.


----------



## George French

May speakers "legally" break the rules of English. Apparently there is no language law, so the answer is of course *no*.

GF..

Go to next thread....


----------



## ewie

Paintdrop said:


> words such as [...] disprove will be thought of as erroneous from the masses.


>gasp!<

_Disprove_ is such an eminently respectable word it's even in _'__our' _dictionary.


----------



## Alxmrphi

ewie said:


> _Disprove_ is such an eminently respectable word it's even in _'__our' _dictionary.



Yeah I wondered what the problem was with that, too.


----------



## timpeac

Alxmrphi said:


> Yeah I wondered what the problem was with that, too.


I agree but ignored it because I assumed it was an error and discussing it would detract from the general discussion.

Having reread the thread I think that it is the question we need redefined here. There are no language police so nothing can be "illegal". Whether you will be looked down on/ laughed at/ applauded for/ pitied for/ bemused by/ amused by/ failed in your exam for/ lose the job your going for because your CV contains the phrase of/ corrected for etc. etc. etc. a certain usage depends on whether most other people say it too.


----------



## ribran

Packard said:


> Within that group, she argued, the dictionary is the law for to allow it to be a "reflection" would give free rein to butchering the English language.
> 
> So is it OK? It depends. (But don't invent words in my niece's English class.)



Ahh yes, *the* dictionary, like *DA RULES*.


----------



## JulianStuart

For those interested in the *"unpolite vs impolite"* debate, Google's Ngram viewer is fun to play with!
British English *in 1800 had unpolite ahead* and they were equal in 1860 and impolite has been pulling ahead ever since.  However, American English *had them about equal in 1800 *but by 1820 already eek impolite was pulling ahead.  So, one concludes, unpolite became "illegal" in American English before it did in British English 

As for unnice it seems to be uniquely American English (albeit rather rare  ) with no sign of it in British English!  The _only_ conclusion this supports is that law enforcement must be stricter in the UK


----------



## rayloom

Same question but for French!
There are 2 verbs I had expected to find in French:
-Ascendre: especially since there is a verb "descendre" (opposite meaning), and a number of related words such as ascenseur, ascension, ascendance, ascendant...etc.
-Disrespecter (or irrespecter): "respecter" exists in French, so does the prefixes "dis-", it makes sense to create "disrespecter" (or "irrespecter", there is a noun "irrespect" in French).

Are there instances where these verbs (ascendre, disrespecter) are used in French literature?
Being a non-native speaker, I'm unsure how "legal" it is to create and start using these words


----------



## timpeac

rayloom said:


> Same question but for French!
> There are 2 verbs I had expected to find in French:
> -Ascendre: especially since there is a verb "descendre" (opposite meaning), and a number of related words such as ascenseur, ascension, ascendance, ascendant...etc.
> -Disrespecter (or irrespecter): "respecter" exists in French, so does the prefixes "dis-", it makes sense to create "disrespecter" (or "irrespecter", there is a noun "irrespect" in French).
> 
> Are there instances where these verbs (ascendre, disrespecter) are used in French literature?
> Being a non-native speaker, I'm unsure how "legal" it is to create and start using these words


The fact your example is drawn from French doesn't negate any of the points above. Have you read them? If not I'd summarise as "there is nothing illegal, only usage. If most French speakers use it, fine - if not, it's nonsense.


----------



## rayloom

timpeac said:


> The fact your example is drawn from French doesn't negate any of the points above. Have you read them? If not I'd summarise as "there is nothing illegal, only usage. If most French speakers use it, fine - if not, it's nonsense.



The "legal" part was just a joke on the title of the thread.
Let me reiterate, my question was if such words are/were used in French literature or not. Most French speakers don't use them, but if they're used in literature, that means they're not nonsense.


----------



## Paintdrop

CapnPrep said:


> First of all, _ir-_/_im-_(and _il_-) are allomorphs of _in-_, and *there are rules about which form you need to choose*. So we can say that your suggestions _imright_ and _irnormal_ are definitely "illegal". But _irright _and _innormal _(with the correct form of the prefix) still sound pretty bad, and this is *because the negative prefix in- is more or less limited to learned roots that are clearly of Latin origin, while un- is used for Germanic* and thoroughly naturalized roots. *So unright and unnormal would be the "legal" way to form these negative adjectives*.
> 
> Of course, everyone has the right to disapprove and reject novel formations, but as native English speakers,* I think we all share the intuition that unright sounds better than irright, which sounds better than imright (as a way of saying "not right").
> 
> 
> 
> *


Thanks for sharing this informative post! These rules that you mention are exactly what I am seeking. It's really interesting to know that the in- prefix is often used for words of Latin origin, and un- for Germanic. I haven't had much Latin, but I will definitely look more into this.   

Oh, and I'm not quite so sure about sharing the intuition that "irright" sounds better than "imright." It's possible that the early emergence of words like improper, immoral, irrefutable, irrational, or any of the im-/ir- constructions sounded awkward to early English speakers as well. Although the ir- constructions tend to follow with an "r" word, the im- constructions do not follow solely with an "m" word. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with irproper, or even imrational. However, I will admit that those words (irproper, imrational) most likely would seem awkard for someone born into a society that never uses them. 

As native speakers, we often accept the words that are given to us without question. In most instances a child doesn't ask, "Why is it called a cat?" or "Why do you call this hair"? However, I am quite sure during the early emergence of the word "hair," or "cat" (regardless of the language of their origin), early speakers may have thought they sounded ridiculous (perhaps because they weren't born into a society where those words were already in existence). However, "cat" and "hair" probably sounded perfectly normal to the children born in the next generation when the word had already gained widespread usage. Many English instructors frown upon the use of "text," as a verb. However, it's quite possible that English instructors of the next few generations will see absolutely nothing wrong with using text as a verb, most likely due to them being born into a society that has widespread usage of the possbily future verb "text."


----------



## Alxmrphi

> As native speakers, we often accept the words that are given to us  without question. In most instances a child doesn't ask, "Why is it  called a cat?" or "Why do you call this hair"? However, I am quite sure  during the early emergence of the word "hair," or "cat" (regardless of  the language of their origin), early speakers may have thought they  sounded ridiculous (perhaps because they weren't born into a society  where those words were already in existence). However, "cat" and "hair"  probably sounded perfectly normal to the children born in the next  generation when the word had already gained widespread usage. Many  English instructors frown upon the use of "text," as a verb. However,  it's quite possible that English instructors of the next few generations  will see absolutely nothing wrong with using text as a verb, most  likely due to them being born into a society that has widespread usage  of the possbily future verb "text."



Yeah, you're right.

I honestly think if all native speakers came together and we decided from now on, every time we say the number four, we put the word "red" at the end of the noun, and "green" at the end of the noun that appears with the number three. So we all make sure we do it all the time, and don't comment on it. So we might say "_I want one carrot, two potatoes, three cokesgreen, four eggsred, five rashes of bacon_", if we all did that, our next generations would be born with a new linguistic rule, and in 50 years, there will be masses of people who do this without even realising, the idea of not using this would seem absurd and "bad English" not to do it. You could introduce something and have a mind internalise a whole linguistic rule if the input is there, and I believe a lot of people would just get used to it. Maybe that example is a bit weird to consider, let's say it was a "ks" sound at the end of every noun for the number three, and a "urr" sound at the end of the nouns that appear with number four. People in quick speech who aren't thinking about it would be using it without fail and not even knowing that 50 years before it was a weird suggestion by an internet user on WordReference.

Just like things like "x-box" sound weird to people who had a good few years knowing English before they were invented, to the kids born and raised with them being around, it's as normal as anything, and will be for as long as it's in existance. People frown upon things that are new because they aren't familiar with it. Keep it alive in the language and children hear it, and just like they'd develop obedience to a fake rule (IMHO), they'd have no difference of associating "text" as a verb being weird, more than "let the cat out the bag" means to spill a secret. Language change is deeply deeply tied to new generation's exposure to different attitudes to words/language.


----------



## JulianStuart

Paintdrop said:


> Thanks for sharing this informative post! These rules that you mention are exactly what I am seeking. It's really interesting to know that the in- prefix is often used for words of Latin origin, and un- for Germanic. I haven't had much Latin, but I will definitely look more into this.


And this "rule" was developed (at least the _written_ records show) in the mid-19th century, if we take the switch from unpolite to impolite as an example. Was this because of the origin of the word polite (Latin/German) or ease of pronunciation, that perhaps impolite is a little easier to say? Or easier to say for the generation after it had been introduced?


----------



## Paintdrop

JulianStuart said:


> And this "rule" was developed (at least the _written_ records show) in the mid-19th century, if we take the switch from unpolite to impolite as an example. Was this because of the origin of the word polite (Latin/German) or ease of pronunciation, that perhaps impolite is a little easier to say? Or easier to say for the generation after it had been introduced?



That's a good question. My favorite American dictionary (Merriam-Webster 11th Collegeate Dictionay) includes dates and etymologies for a large percentage of their words. They etymologize *impolite *as follows: 

*Etymology:* Latin impolitus, from _in- + politus _polite
*Date:* 1739

The date only adds more confusion if these rules of prefix formation didn't occur until the mid-19th century. Also, I now wonder why _in + politus _didn't form inpolite instead of impolite.


----------



## JulianStuart

Paintdrop said:


> That's a good question. My favorite American dictionary (Merriam-Webster 11th Collegeate Dictionay) includes dates and etymologies for a large percentage of their words. They etymologize *impolite *as follows:
> 
> *Etymology:* Latin impolitus, from _in- + politus _polite
> *Date:* 1739
> 
> The date only adds more confusion if these rules of prefix formation didn't occur until the mid-19th century. Also, I now wonder why _in + politus _didn't form inpolite instead of impolite.


What happened then was that impolite took over from unpolite as the commoner of the two and unpolite then faded away In- before plosives commonly goes to im- , as in imbibe, impossible, implode etc.  But then, why not umpolite?


----------



## Einstein

JulianStuart said:


> What happened then was that impolite took over from unpolite as the commoner of the two and unpolite then faded away In- before plosives commonly goes to im- , as in imbibe, impossible, implode etc.  But then, why not umpolite?


I think the answer is that the substitution of in- with im-, ill- or irr- is a rule that already existed in Latin and was adopted in English together with the Latin prefix. No such rule exists in German, which is why we don't modify un- (unready, unpractical, unlucky, unmarried).
I'll add that in many cases the complete negative word came over from Latin, or neo-Latin languages, with the rule already applied, so we saw no reason to modify it.


----------



## Gwan

Paintdrop said:


> ...[W]ould you as an instructor see anything wrong with someone using the word "impolite?"



...I was a terrible teacher and I hated it, so I no longer do it, but (presuming you meant to ask whether I would see anything wrong with 'unpolite', not 'impolite') then yes, of course it would be a teacher's role to tell her student that 'unpolite' wasn't in general use in English - it would simply be an automatic response. Naturally, my response would be different if I heard the same thing from you, a native speaker of English, but students don't come to English class to be told that they can combine suffixes and prefixes or invent words etc. however they fancy.


----------



## Perseas

Paintdrop said:


> They etymologize *impolite *as follows:
> 
> *Etymology:* Latin impolitus, from _in- + politus _polite
> 
> Also, I now wonder why _in + politus _didn't form inpolite instead of impolite.


 The change of the sound *n* to that of *m*, probably relates to the combination of *n* with *p*. In (Ancient) Greek language the nasal /*n*/ (ν) before a labial mute /p, v , f/ (π, β, φ) or /m/ (μ) becomes /m/ (μ). I assume that in Latin also happens something analogous. Example: i*n* + *p*olitus ---> i*m*politus.


----------



## timpeac

rayloom said:


> The "legal" part was just a joke on the title of the thread.
> Let me reiterate, my question was if such words are/were used in French literature or not. Most French speakers don't use them, but if they're used in literature, that means they're not nonsense.


Then you've answered your own question.


----------



## CapnPrep

Paintdrop said:


> The date [1739] only adds more confusion if these rules of prefix formation didn't occur until the mid-19th century.


Why confusion? JulianStuart's results show that _impolite_ became more frequent than _unpolite_ in the 19th century. That means that both forms existed before that (the OED has them appearing in the 17th century, with the primary sense of "not polished").  And more generally, the two prefixes _in-_ and _un-_ are very old, older than English itself, and they have been in competition with one another throughout the history of English.



			
				OED said:
			
		

> 5. b. From the 14th century onwards there was considerable variation, when the base was of Latin origin, between the Latin _in-_, _im-_, etc., and the native _un-_. […] The culminating period of the double forms lies in the 17th  century; since that time the tendency has been to differentiate, and to  discard one or other of the doublets, the forms with _in-_, etc., being very commonly preferred when the whole word has a distinctively Latin character, as _inadequate_, _inadvertence_, _inarticulate_, etc. Even with such forms there is no absolute rule, and doublets are still numerous, as _in-_ or _un-advisable_, _in-_ or _un-alienable_, etc.
> 
> 7. a. _Un-_ is freely prefixed to adjectives of all kinds, except where a Latin form in _in-_,  etc., has definitely established itself in common use. Both forms,  however, may co-exist, and in some cases a new formation with _un-_ has been introduced when that with _in-_ has acquired a connotation which it is desirable to avoid. The form with _un-_ is then purely negative, while the other may have almost a positive sense, e.g. _un-moral_ in contrast with _immoral_. […] There is also considerable restriction in the use of _un-_ with  short simple adjectives of native origin, the negative of these being  naturally supplied by another simple word of an opposite signification.  There is thus little or no tendency now to employ such forms as _unbroad_, _undeep_, _unwide_, _unbold_, _unglad_, _ungood_, _unstrong_, _unwhole_, _unfew_, etc., which freely occur in the older language.


----------



## Istriano

I think UN- is used more and more each day:_ Unbreak my heart, to be cot/caught unmerged, people who remain unconnected to twitter...
Unhungry, unsleepy, unmarried..._ It's fashionable._ 
_


----------



## Packard

And then there is "unfinished furniture".  Which is an unfortunate use of "un".  To my mind "unfinished furniture" is the stuff in my workshop awaiting completion.  Not furniture that lacks a finish (unless it was finished, and then a finish was applied and then the finish was removed, i.e. "un-finished" or better yet "de-finished").


----------



## JulianStuart

Packard said:


> And then there is "unfinished furniture".  Which is an unfortunate use of "un".  To my mind "unfinished furniture" is the stuff in my workshop awaiting completion.  Not furniture that lacks a finish (unless it was finished, and then a finish was applied and then the finish was removed, i.e. "un-finished" or better yet "de-finished").


The stuff in the workshop is uncompleted or incomplete, or pehaps uncomplete and incompleted.  Only time and the fluid preferences of general usage will decide which will survive - only to be changed by future generations - or, as we might say, undone (indone would never do).


----------



## Paintdrop

*@CapnPrep *or anyone for that matter! 

CapnPrep recently posted...

"7. a. _Un-_ is freely prefixed to adjectives of all kinds, except where a Latin form in _in-_,  etc., has definitely established itself in common use. Both forms,  however, may co-exist, and in some cases a new formation with _un-_ has been introduced when that with _in-_ has acquired a connotation which it is desirable to avoid. The form with _un-_ is then purely negative, while the other may have almost a positive sense, e.g. _un-moral_ in contrast with _immoral_. […] There is also considerable restriction in the use of _un-_ with  short simple adjectives of native origin, the negative of these being  naturally supplied by another simple word of an opposite signification.  *There is thus little or no tendency now to employ such forms as unbroad, undeep, unwide, unbold, unglad, ungood, unstrong, unwhole, unfew, etc., which freely occur in the older language*."


I would now like to ask a question about the bolded print. If words such as unwide, undeep, unfew, and unstrong were used in the "older language," then can we still use them now and be grammatically correct? Aren't we still using words from the old language anyway? I am right or wrong by saying "English is English?"


----------



## JulianStuart

Paintdrop said:


> I would now like to ask a question about the bolded print. If words such as unwide, undeep, unfew, and unstrong were used in the "older language," then can we still use them now and be grammatically correct? Aren't we still using words from the old language anyway? I am right or wrong by saying "English is English?"


I think you are asking a question about _vocabulary usage_, not whether they are grammatically "correct" (whatever that _really_ means!).


----------



## JamesM

Paintdrop said:


> *@CapnPrep *or anyone for that matter!
> 
> CapnPrep recently posted...
> 
> "7. a. _Un-_ is freely prefixed to adjectives of all kinds, except where a Latin form in _in-_,  etc., has definitely established itself in common use. Both forms,  however, may co-exist, and in some cases a new formation with _un-_ has been introduced when that with _in-_ has acquired a connotation which it is desirable to avoid. The form with _un-_ is then purely negative, while the other may have almost a positive sense, e.g. _un-moral_ in contrast with _immoral_. […] There is also considerable restriction in the use of _un-_ with  short simple adjectives of native origin, the negative of these being  naturally supplied by another simple word of an opposite signification.  *There is thus little or no tendency now to employ such forms as unbroad, undeep, unwide, unbold, unglad, ungood, unstrong, unwhole, unfew, etc., which freely occur in the older language*."
> 
> 
> I would now like to ask a question about the bolded print. If words such as unwide, undeep, unfew, and unstrong were used in the "older language," then can we still use them now and be grammatically correct? Aren't we still using words from the old language anyway? I am right or wrong by saying "English is English?"



English is:

A) not monolithic - there are several variants in the world
B) not standardized (see point A) - there is no single, universal ruling body that determines what is English and what is not
C) not static - it changes constantly

If you mean "isn't English from any place and any point in time always acceptable in current English in a particular country by those who are in a position to judge your use of English?" then you're definitely wrong.


----------



## Meyer Wolfsheim

Paintdrop said:


> Ok, I’ve pondered about this question quite some time now. We’ve all heard of the words unhappy, unexcited, unsteady, unleashed, unreal, disapprove, improper, irregular, rewrite, rewritten, and reopen.
> 
> However, many of us rarely, if ever, have heard someone say the words unnice, unpolite, recelebrate, rejumped, retasted, retravel, redriven, imright, or disproud because their usage would be quite often frowned upon by the vast majority of English speakers.
> 
> Well, my first question to you is are those words considered grammatically correct in your opinion (regardless of their awkwardness)? If not, can you please enlighten me if there were ever a reputable, standard set of rules created sometime long ago regarding how adjectives or verbs are to be connected to these following prefixes: re, un, ir, dis, im, or in?
> 
> Otherwise, if no such rules exist, may speakers “legally” break the rules of English so to speak? That is, can we construct words such as disproud, unproud, unpolite, irnormal, redriven, or reflown, yet still be grammatically correct?
> 
> Whether you agree or disagree, I would be highly grateful to receive feedback.  Thanks a bunch!



First of all, the word derivations you are speaking of are not so much grammatical as they are as simple re-using functional derivational morphology available to English speakers.  This is a complex issue in English due to having many sources of word derivation (Latin via French and Germanic).  We will need to look at your so called "awkward" derivations on a case by case basis starting with them in their proper groupings:

Unnice/unpolite class: Here you are prefixing the "un-" which normally negates the meaning of an adjective to derive the adjective meaning its opposite.  Polarity itself is a sensitive issue, however these derivations where you would instead expect: "not nice" or "impolite", are perfectly FINE according to the rules regarding the "un-" morpheme.  I hear all the time native English speakers form less heard adjectives such as "unnice."  In a *pure grammatical point of view*, such adjectives with "un-" are *grammatically correct *100%.  Only a prescriptivist may tell you otherwise (lower education teacher, etc.).  

disproud/imright: Again another play with English derivatonal morphology, this time using the prefixes "dis-" and "im-."  I will argue that "disproud" is ill formed (not grammatical) simply because "dis" is the wrong prefix, instead you should suggest "improud."  As for "imright," it is incorrect for several reasons.  First of all, you are attempting to derive with the Latin prefix /in-/ which is present many English latin derived words but I will argue is *NOT* functioning because it may only apply to Latin derived words and the set of those such words is more or less *closed.*  In addition, the Latin prefix "in-" is much closer phonologicaly to its host and thus the "n" changes depending on the sound of the adjective, giving rise to five allophonic variations:
[in-]=standard/default (in*e*rt)
[im-]=before a word beginning with b or p (i*mp*ossible)
[ing-]=before a word beginning with k or g (velar nasal, written same as -in) (i*nc*apable)
[il-]=before a word with beginning l (i*ll*egal)
[ir-]=before a word with beginning r (i*rr*egular)

Based on the allophony presented, the only logical formation would be "irright," however because /in-/ is no longer functioning, we cannot use it to derive new members to the adjectives, so the grammatical possibility would be "unright," which, while seldom ever heard, is perfectly grammatical.  

rejumped/recelebrated/retasted/retravel/redriven: For these verbs, you are simply adding on the /re-/ derivational morpheme which goes onto a verb to imply the action is done again.  I believe that this morpheme comes from Latin (but I am not 100% sure) and while it is still productive, English prefers to use an adverb, "jumped *again*", "traveled *again" *instead of expressing this through a morphological means (which English disfavours).  Another reason why those would most likely seem ill formed is that the "re-" verbs are generally things which naturally happen again so "rejumped" (and any other odd ones) might sound semantically bazar, but again the verb derivations are *correct *from a pure grammatical view.  

The rules of English word derivation lie within everyone's head and we may each have a slightly different variation but more or less are the same.  I cannot tell you why "unright" is beaten by "incorrect" or any of the other possibly variations, but you will generally know if you make an awkward derivation.  Besides fooling the /in-/ prefix most of the words you gave are grammatically formed correctly!


----------



## Packard

JamesM said:


> English is:
> 
> A) not monolithic - there are several variants in the world
> B) not standardized (see point A) - there is no single, universal ruling body that determines what is English and what is not
> C) not static - it changes constantly
> 
> If you mean "isn't English from any place and any point in time always acceptable in current English in a particular country by those who are in a position to judge your use of English?" then you're definitely wrong.



All of which surprises me. Why do you think that someone has not decided to declare, "This is English, and from henceforth it will no longer change."?

We've standardized so many other things in the world, why not language? 

Weights and measures
hours and minutes
months and years
etc.


----------



## CapnPrep

Meyer Wolfsheim, I agree with most everything you said (in particular the things that I already said ), but I wonder on what basis you make the following statements:


Meyer Wolfsheim said:


> I will argue that "disproud" is ill formed (not grammatical) simply because "dis" is the wrong prefix, instead you should suggest "improud."


_Dis- _can be added to (Latinate) adjectives with simple negative force: _discourteous_, _dishonest_. It seems to be only weakly productive, if at all, in this function, but I don't see why it would be the "wrong prefix" to use with _proud_.



Meyer Wolfsheim said:


> First of all, you are attempting to derive with the Latin prefix /in-/ which is present many English latin derived words but I will argue is *NOT* functioning because it may only apply to Latin derived words and the set of those such words is more or less *closed.*


Just as you recognize that a given word class can be more or less open/closed, the productivity of a prefix is not an all-or-nothing property, and it also depends on what we mean by productivity. The OED considers _in-_ to be productive (s.v. _in-_, prefix 3):


> In English _in-_ (_il-_, _im-_, _ir-_)  is a living negative suffix for words of Latin or Romanic origin,  freely used, even when no corresponding formation appears in Latin; in  this use it interchanges to some extent with the Old English negative _un-_, which is used in native or thoroughly naturalized words


From the point of view of the individual language learner, also, I believe that the generalization that _in-_ goes with Latin roots does emerge and aids in the acquisition of this part of the lexicon. To what extent this remains active as a source of novel derivations in the "adult" grammar is yet another question, and there will be a lot of individual variation here (as you said), but I would be surprised if any speakers treated this prefix as either fully productive or fully unproductive.


----------



## koniecswiata

Interesting thread and comments--don't feel I have much to add just that anyone can say or write whatever they want.  However, they need to be understood and accepted since communication tends to be about that.  It 's being accepted that can be tricky sometimes:  Is it acceptable for a certain group (or register) to hear or read things like:  Just text me / Y'all / youse / I seen it /Him and me went there / Between you and I /  Everyone has their own seat / You're so not getting that / Are you good? ... 

About "dis".  To me it seems fairly productive:  disrespect, "dis" someone, disbelieve, disregard, dislodge, diservice, etc... Also, it shows that latin-root affixes can go with germanic-root core words.  The same thing is happening with "re":  rebrand, regift, reread, rewrite, replay.  These are all case of this latin-root affixex attaching to germanic root words.  I would say that bespeaks of their productivity and total integration into the language.


----------



## Meyer Wolfsheim

I may have been outspoken in certain parts and thank you for clarifiying my confusing writing.  I did not bother to read through much of the posts because the volume was too great (though not a reasonable excuse at all)

In regards to the Latin /in-/ if it had a level of productivity then how could the poster have posited a phonologically incorrect form:

(a) *im*right
when the expected word would be (b) *ir*right

based on the well known allophony of the prefix.  

Thus do English speakers actually have a mastery of that prefix or simply out of sheer memorization/vocabulary happen to preserve the allophony?  

I will argue that /in-/ --> [ing] (transformation to velar nasal before a velar stop) comes from a nasal velarization already well implanted in English.  

I may be getting off topic, but should not the phonology be respected if the prefix has some productivity left or are the new adjectives which have the Latin suffix disrespecting the nasal place agreement?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Meyer Wolfsheim said:


> I may be getting off topic, but should not the phonology be respected if  the prefix has some productivity left or are the new adjectives which  have the Latin suffix disrespecting the nasal place agreement?


This is a Latin rule though, not an English one.
I think we can borrow the affixes, merge them with our own Germanic roots whatever, see where the meanings are there, but at least in my opinion it's certainly not "disrespecting" any rule by not having things in English _the way they would have been in Latin_.


----------



## Einstein

koniecswiata said:


> About "dis". To me it seems fairly productive: disrespect, "dis" someone, disbelieve, disregard, dislodge, diservice, etc... Also, it shows that latin-root affixes can go with germanic-root core words. The same thing is happening with "re": rebrand, regift, reread, rewrite, replay. These are all case of this latin-root affixex attaching to germanic root words. I would say that bespeaks of their productivity and total integration into the language.


But can the same be said about "in"? Instinct tells me that if we coin a negative word in English we are likely to use either "dis" or "un", rather than "in". This is partly because "in" (with its modifications) is not necessarily a negative prefix (inflame, inherit, instruct, imbibe, implant, irradiate, illustrate), so other prefixes are preferred. That's why I support the view that "in" is recognised as being negative in meaning mainly because it already formed part of negative words inherited from Latin. As a result, the modifications of "in" come from Latin and not from any tendency in English pronunciation.
Alxmrphi says


> at least in my opinion it's certainly not "disrespecting" any rule by not having things in English _the way they would have been in Latin_.


but for the reasons given above I don't think the problem arises; we don't use "in" to coin new negative words.
When we use "un", no such modifications are made: we say "unlikely" and "unreadable" rather than "ullikely" and "urreadable". And then "inroads" is a word of Germanic etymology so we don't say "irroads" (OK, it's not negative but neither is "irradiate", as I said above).

It's difficult to find words beginning with "in" that are not of Latin origin, but also within words Latin (and Italian, which I know far better) transforms "np" to "mp". This doesn't happen in English words; no one says that "pinpoint" should become "pimpoint".

PS It does occur to me that people speaking quickly are likely to say something like "pimpoint". And think of how many people pronounce "sandwich" with an "m"! So that partly goes against what I've been saying!


----------



## berndf

Einstein said:


> PS It does occur to me that people speaking quickly are likely to say something like "pimpoint". And think of how many people pronounce "sandwich" with an "m"! So that partly goes against what I've been saying!


But in English is isn't a phonological law but an assimilation which _occasionally_ happens in rapid speech. Therefore it didn't affect spelling and it doesn't invalidate what you wrote before.


----------



## Einstein

berndf said:


> But in English is isn't a phonological law but an assimilation which _occasionally_ happens in rapid speech. Therefore it didn't affect spelling and it doesn't invalidate what you wrote before.


Yes, it was an afterthought and I stand by what I said previously. However, unfortunately in English the fact that a change in pronunciation doesn't affect the spelling doesn't prove very much.


----------



## berndf

Einstein said:


> Yes, it was an afterthought and I stand by what I said previously. However, unfortunately in English the fact that a change in pronunciation doesn't affect the spelling doesn't prove very much.


This assimilation effect happens in other Germanic languages as well and doesn't effect spelling there either.


----------



## CapnPrep

koniecswiata said:


> About "dis".  To me it seems fairly productive:  disrespect, "dis" someone, disbelieve, disregard, dislodge, diservice, etc...





Einstein said:


> But can the same be said about "in"? Instinct tells me that if we coin a negative word in English we are likely to use either "dis" or "un", rather than "in".


 
We were speaking specifically about the example _disproud_/_improud_/_unproud_ — that is, adjectival formations of the form _prefix +_ _simple adjective_. I would say (again) that _dis_- is only weakly productive in this environment, and I doubt that it's any more productive than _in_- (and both of these come far behind _un-_).


----------



## Einstein

CapnPrep said:


> We were speaking specifically about the example _disproud_/_improud_/_unproud_ — that is, adjectival formations of the form _prefix +_ _simple adjective_. I would say (again) that _dis_- is only weakly productive in this environment, and I doubt that it's any more productive than _in_- (and both of these come far behind _un-_).


Yes, maybe I expressed myself badly. I agree that un- is far more productive than either in- or dis-. However, I feel that dis- is probably more productive than in-. Just my gut feeling, I haven't investigated.


----------



## timpeac

Einstein said:


> Yes, maybe I expressed myself badly. I agree that un- is far more productive than either in- or dis-. However, I feel that dis- is probably more productive than in-. Just my gut feeling, I haven't investigated.


I think that "un" can be productive when meaning "not the adjective in question", however I think the question is more difficult in forming opposites.

So in a traditional word like "unhappy" the "un" doesn't just mean "not happy" it really means "sad". "Unfair" means that you have acted unjustly, not simply that you have done nothing fair. In newer usages if you said "unproud" then this would probably be taken as simply "not proud" (as opposed to whatever the opposite of "proud" is - humble?) For the other prefixes I think using them sounds much more like you are trying to form the opposite, and the problem becomes what is the opposite of "proud" etc? It's not obvious and therefore sounds odd.


----------



## berndf

Einstein said:


> However, I feel that dis- is probably more productive than in-.


Neologisms based on the prefix _dys-/dis-_ are almost invariably academic terms, at least in origin, where productivity in Ancient Greek matters more than productivity in Modern English. Also, the prefix mainly means "bad" as _dysrhythmic_ (_having a bad rhythm_) or _dysfunctional_ (_functioning badly_).


----------



## berndf

Packard said:


> Hmmm.


Could you elaborate?


----------



## Alxmrphi

berndf said:


> Could you elaborate?


Yeah, I thought the same.


----------



## L'irlandais

Paintdrop said:


> Otherwise, if no such rules exist, may speakers “legally” break the rules of English so to speak? That is, can we construct words such as disproud, unproud, unpolite, irnormal, redriven, or reflown, yet still be grammatically correct?


Hello paintdrop,
Depends if the word is perceived as creative, or just plain awkward.  Let folks be creative if they are capable of it, otherwise just "outlaw" their feeble attempts. 
J.R.R.Tolkein coined the term Eucatastrophe to describe the literary turn of events in the LOTR series.  Of course not all of us are as adept as this man.





> _Abusus non tollit usum _[the abuse of a thing does not take away its proper use]. (Quote Tolkein "On fairy stories")


So while some might butcher any language, that shouldn't stop the capable being creative with words.

You also ask _"How does this compare with other European languages?"_  Well many "butchered" words are accepted into the French language, while the efforts of l'Académie française to introduce new "creative" words are often rejected by the general public.


----------

