ir
I have once violated the English language. I made this tittle for one of my photos. Just wonder if it is not totally wrong. The tittle was “Irreddenable blue” and I meant a blue colour that cannot be redden. I had thought to myself that I must use “ir” to twist a word which begins with an R. Could that be OK? Would you forgive me for that?
Submit Your Comment
©2024 CYCLE Interactive, LLC.
All Rights Reserved.
It's not strictly "correct," but I LOVE IT. KEEP IT. OR I WILL BE UPSET. :)
It is perfectly clear and easy to understand. It does not strike me as illiterate or ignorant at all. It is reminiscent of the unrelated word "irredeemable."
Actually I am not sure what the correct word would be! You can "redden" something (and then it "has been reddened"). I think most native English speakers would tend to use the "un-" prefix because it is usually seen as the default. So "unreddenable."
But let me say this again... your title is very artistic in itself. I think this is just one of many occasions when what is "correct" in one sense must give way to what is correct and pleasing artistically.
speedwell2 May-09-2004
2 votes Permalink Report Abuse
"ir-" only ever happens before "r", but that doesn't mean all words starting with "r" must be negated using "ir-".
Examples negated with "un-" include unrecognizable, unrecommendable, unrecordable, unreliable, unremarkable, unrentable, unrepealable, unresolvable, unsaleable, and unsatisfiable.
mpt1 May-11-2004
1 vote Permalink Report Abuse
mpt, you must tell us what you think the correct English word would be to describe something that cannot be reddened!
speedwell2 May-11-2004
0 vote Permalink Report Abuse
Can it be that such a concept requires more than one word to be correctly articulated in English?
Anonymous_Coward May-17-2004
0 vote Permalink Report Abuse
Oh, AC, that's passe... the "one word" necesary has now been coined. By Goossun. :)
speedwell2 May-17-2004
0 vote Permalink Report Abuse