in-able ? un-able?
Suffix -able adds meaning "being able" to a word. I know that.
Prefix in- and un- mean "not" or some negative meaning. I know that.
However, when it comes to mixing of these, I am confused.
- unbelievable
- indispensable
In the dictionary I can find many words of these forms, let's call them in-able and un-able, whose composing rule seems just random to me.
When given a certain word body, how can I make an in-able or un-able word to mean "not being able"?
suffixes prefixes derivational-morphology negative-prefixes able-ible
add a comment |
Suffix -able adds meaning "being able" to a word. I know that.
Prefix in- and un- mean "not" or some negative meaning. I know that.
However, when it comes to mixing of these, I am confused.
- unbelievable
- indispensable
In the dictionary I can find many words of these forms, let's call them in-able and un-able, whose composing rule seems just random to me.
When given a certain word body, how can I make an in-able or un-able word to mean "not being able"?
suffixes prefixes derivational-morphology negative-prefixes able-ible
2
I am unacquainted with any helpful rule, and I fear it is unknowable, although you may find this inconceivable. (Does that word mean what I think it means?)
– James McLeod
Jun 22 '12 at 2:45
2
Possible duplicate of Why “unequal” but “inequality”? Read the top and accepted answer there. Also, check out the questions linked from there, such as Rule to determine when to use the prefix “im” vs. “un” to negate a word starting with “p” and I was wondering why there are multiple prefixes for the same meaning
– RegDwigнt♦
Jun 22 '12 at 7:48
So, net-net, you're looking for a "rule" that would enable the use of "un-able"?
– Hot Licks
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Suffix -able adds meaning "being able" to a word. I know that.
Prefix in- and un- mean "not" or some negative meaning. I know that.
However, when it comes to mixing of these, I am confused.
- unbelievable
- indispensable
In the dictionary I can find many words of these forms, let's call them in-able and un-able, whose composing rule seems just random to me.
When given a certain word body, how can I make an in-able or un-able word to mean "not being able"?
suffixes prefixes derivational-morphology negative-prefixes able-ible
Suffix -able adds meaning "being able" to a word. I know that.
Prefix in- and un- mean "not" or some negative meaning. I know that.
However, when it comes to mixing of these, I am confused.
- unbelievable
- indispensable
In the dictionary I can find many words of these forms, let's call them in-able and un-able, whose composing rule seems just random to me.
When given a certain word body, how can I make an in-able or un-able word to mean "not being able"?
suffixes prefixes derivational-morphology negative-prefixes able-ible
suffixes prefixes derivational-morphology negative-prefixes able-ible
edited Aug 23 '16 at 5:16
sumelic
46k8108211
46k8108211
asked Jun 22 '12 at 2:04
takuma7
8127
8127
2
I am unacquainted with any helpful rule, and I fear it is unknowable, although you may find this inconceivable. (Does that word mean what I think it means?)
– James McLeod
Jun 22 '12 at 2:45
2
Possible duplicate of Why “unequal” but “inequality”? Read the top and accepted answer there. Also, check out the questions linked from there, such as Rule to determine when to use the prefix “im” vs. “un” to negate a word starting with “p” and I was wondering why there are multiple prefixes for the same meaning
– RegDwigнt♦
Jun 22 '12 at 7:48
So, net-net, you're looking for a "rule" that would enable the use of "un-able"?
– Hot Licks
3 hours ago
add a comment |
2
I am unacquainted with any helpful rule, and I fear it is unknowable, although you may find this inconceivable. (Does that word mean what I think it means?)
– James McLeod
Jun 22 '12 at 2:45
2
Possible duplicate of Why “unequal” but “inequality”? Read the top and accepted answer there. Also, check out the questions linked from there, such as Rule to determine when to use the prefix “im” vs. “un” to negate a word starting with “p” and I was wondering why there are multiple prefixes for the same meaning
– RegDwigнt♦
Jun 22 '12 at 7:48
So, net-net, you're looking for a "rule" that would enable the use of "un-able"?
– Hot Licks
3 hours ago
2
2
I am unacquainted with any helpful rule, and I fear it is unknowable, although you may find this inconceivable. (Does that word mean what I think it means?)
– James McLeod
Jun 22 '12 at 2:45
I am unacquainted with any helpful rule, and I fear it is unknowable, although you may find this inconceivable. (Does that word mean what I think it means?)
– James McLeod
Jun 22 '12 at 2:45
2
2
Possible duplicate of Why “unequal” but “inequality”? Read the top and accepted answer there. Also, check out the questions linked from there, such as Rule to determine when to use the prefix “im” vs. “un” to negate a word starting with “p” and I was wondering why there are multiple prefixes for the same meaning
– RegDwigнt♦
Jun 22 '12 at 7:48
Possible duplicate of Why “unequal” but “inequality”? Read the top and accepted answer there. Also, check out the questions linked from there, such as Rule to determine when to use the prefix “im” vs. “un” to negate a word starting with “p” and I was wondering why there are multiple prefixes for the same meaning
– RegDwigнt♦
Jun 22 '12 at 7:48
So, net-net, you're looking for a "rule" that would enable the use of "un-able"?
– Hot Licks
3 hours ago
So, net-net, you're looking for a "rule" that would enable the use of "un-able"?
– Hot Licks
3 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Consider unbelievable versus its synonym incredible, and you will find what there is to be found of an answer here.
The general tendency is to use un‑ on Germanic words or any generic English term, and to use in‑ (possibly mutated; see next paragraph) for words of Latin origin. This is not hard and fast, however; there are of course exceptions.
Also, the Latinate in‑ prefix comes in other forms, like illegible, immutable, irreducible. Those also count as in‑ versions, not un‑ versions.
Similarly, ‑able is the more general ending, but -ible also frequently occurs. In fact, you will find that ‑able and ‑ance tend to go together, just as ‑ible and ‑ence tend to go together.
Here again there is an etymological explanation: whether it derived from either a Germanic word or from a first-conjugation Latin verb (so Germanic words or Latin ‑are verbs yield ‑able type endings) on the one hand, or whether it was instead from another Latin conjugation (so ‑ere verbs and such yield ‑ible type endings) on the other.
But as before, there are notable exceptions.
add a comment |
I don't think there is a rule for that. Both preffixes un-
and in-
usually apply to adjectives, and that is what you get when you have something-able.
The only "rule" I can remember is that for some verbs, when you want to mean the reverse action, un-
is what you want (undo, unlock, untie...).
2
No, there is a tendency, as @tchrist said; but it is not always reliable.
– Colin Fine
Jun 22 '12 at 10:06
add a comment |
I agree with elias that there is no simple rule for this. Something that supports this viewpoint is that a number of words have shown variation over time, or still show variation: a famous example is "inalienable" vs. "unalienable".
I haven't yet found a guide to this, so here are some tendencies that seem valid to me.
If the -able word is based on a monosyllabic verb, use -un.
That is, if you can remove the suffix -able from the adjective and get a monosyllabic English verb, the adjective almost certainly can be negated with un-, and cannot be negated with in-. I only know of two common exceptions, incurable (which is an exception to both parts of the previous sentence: *uncurable has negligible usage) and insolvable (which is currently less frequent than unsolvable).
I would guess that there are more than a hundred examples of words that follow this rule; to start with, you can consider unthinkable, unspeakable, unbearable, unstoppable, unflappable, unshakable, unforeseeable, unsalable, unquenchable, unbridgeable, unworkable, unlovable, unlikable, unwearable, unbreakable, unchainable, unplayable, unwinnable.
Un- is possible even when the verb is of French or Latin origin, as in untouchable, untreatable, unusable, unnotable.
Insuitable in place of unsuitable seems to be obsolete, although it can be found in dictionaries and some old documents.
Minor rules based on the spelling of the end of the word
If the word ends in -kable, use un-.
I don't know of any exceptions to this in modern usage, but the words covered by it are mainly a subset of the words covered by the previous rule. We do also get unremarkable, unmistakable, unrebukable, unattackable. Inattackable seems to have once existed, but I think it's pretty much never used anymore.
If the word ends in -cable, you can use in-.
There are words ending in -cable that can be negated by un- (e.g. uneducable, although apparently some people prefer the sound of ineducable). But I haven't found any -cable adjectives that cannot be negated with in-.
If the word ends in -yable, use un-.
As with -kable, most examples are monosyllables, but we also have undestroyable, unemployable and unenjoyable. In-/im- may be found in unassimilated French words that are occasionally used in English such as impayable, incroyable.
If the word ends in -onable, use un-.
There aren't so many words that end like this, but I think there are enough to identify this as a pattern. Many of these words end more specifically in -ionable or -tionable. Examples: unquestionable, unexceptionable, unmentionable, unobjectionable; unconscionable, unfashionable; unseasonable, unreasonable,
unpardonable. "In-" is not always completely impossible in this context; "inconscionable" exists, but is much less common. "Infashionable" has been used occasionally in the past (it's in the OED), but is now obsolete.
There are some other exceptions to the monosyllabic rule, though they’re generally not synchronically based on anything recognisable within English: inarable, incapable, ineffable, inscrutable, intractable, inviable. Some are recognisable, though, like insolvable. (And who’s Elias? Edit: Oh, I see. The community wiki answer. The name of the poster of a CW answer doesn’t show up in the iOS app, apparently.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
@JanusBahsJacquet: elias wrote the community wiki answer to this question. I meant "a monosyllabic verb in English", although I should maybe edit to clarify: I don't think are, cap(e), eff, scrute and the like are used outside of jocular contexts.
– sumelic
4 hours ago
Well, eff is, but in a different sense. :-p Solve definitely is, though, that’s an actual exception. (Apparently authors of CW answers don’t appear in the iOS app; never noticed that before.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
add a comment |
protected by Mari-Lou A Nov 24 '17 at 22:42
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Consider unbelievable versus its synonym incredible, and you will find what there is to be found of an answer here.
The general tendency is to use un‑ on Germanic words or any generic English term, and to use in‑ (possibly mutated; see next paragraph) for words of Latin origin. This is not hard and fast, however; there are of course exceptions.
Also, the Latinate in‑ prefix comes in other forms, like illegible, immutable, irreducible. Those also count as in‑ versions, not un‑ versions.
Similarly, ‑able is the more general ending, but -ible also frequently occurs. In fact, you will find that ‑able and ‑ance tend to go together, just as ‑ible and ‑ence tend to go together.
Here again there is an etymological explanation: whether it derived from either a Germanic word or from a first-conjugation Latin verb (so Germanic words or Latin ‑are verbs yield ‑able type endings) on the one hand, or whether it was instead from another Latin conjugation (so ‑ere verbs and such yield ‑ible type endings) on the other.
But as before, there are notable exceptions.
add a comment |
Consider unbelievable versus its synonym incredible, and you will find what there is to be found of an answer here.
The general tendency is to use un‑ on Germanic words or any generic English term, and to use in‑ (possibly mutated; see next paragraph) for words of Latin origin. This is not hard and fast, however; there are of course exceptions.
Also, the Latinate in‑ prefix comes in other forms, like illegible, immutable, irreducible. Those also count as in‑ versions, not un‑ versions.
Similarly, ‑able is the more general ending, but -ible also frequently occurs. In fact, you will find that ‑able and ‑ance tend to go together, just as ‑ible and ‑ence tend to go together.
Here again there is an etymological explanation: whether it derived from either a Germanic word or from a first-conjugation Latin verb (so Germanic words or Latin ‑are verbs yield ‑able type endings) on the one hand, or whether it was instead from another Latin conjugation (so ‑ere verbs and such yield ‑ible type endings) on the other.
But as before, there are notable exceptions.
add a comment |
Consider unbelievable versus its synonym incredible, and you will find what there is to be found of an answer here.
The general tendency is to use un‑ on Germanic words or any generic English term, and to use in‑ (possibly mutated; see next paragraph) for words of Latin origin. This is not hard and fast, however; there are of course exceptions.
Also, the Latinate in‑ prefix comes in other forms, like illegible, immutable, irreducible. Those also count as in‑ versions, not un‑ versions.
Similarly, ‑able is the more general ending, but -ible also frequently occurs. In fact, you will find that ‑able and ‑ance tend to go together, just as ‑ible and ‑ence tend to go together.
Here again there is an etymological explanation: whether it derived from either a Germanic word or from a first-conjugation Latin verb (so Germanic words or Latin ‑are verbs yield ‑able type endings) on the one hand, or whether it was instead from another Latin conjugation (so ‑ere verbs and such yield ‑ible type endings) on the other.
But as before, there are notable exceptions.
Consider unbelievable versus its synonym incredible, and you will find what there is to be found of an answer here.
The general tendency is to use un‑ on Germanic words or any generic English term, and to use in‑ (possibly mutated; see next paragraph) for words of Latin origin. This is not hard and fast, however; there are of course exceptions.
Also, the Latinate in‑ prefix comes in other forms, like illegible, immutable, irreducible. Those also count as in‑ versions, not un‑ versions.
Similarly, ‑able is the more general ending, but -ible also frequently occurs. In fact, you will find that ‑able and ‑ance tend to go together, just as ‑ible and ‑ence tend to go together.
Here again there is an etymological explanation: whether it derived from either a Germanic word or from a first-conjugation Latin verb (so Germanic words or Latin ‑are verbs yield ‑able type endings) on the one hand, or whether it was instead from another Latin conjugation (so ‑ere verbs and such yield ‑ible type endings) on the other.
But as before, there are notable exceptions.
answered Jun 22 '12 at 4:18
tchrist♦
108k28290463
108k28290463
add a comment |
add a comment |
I don't think there is a rule for that. Both preffixes un-
and in-
usually apply to adjectives, and that is what you get when you have something-able.
The only "rule" I can remember is that for some verbs, when you want to mean the reverse action, un-
is what you want (undo, unlock, untie...).
2
No, there is a tendency, as @tchrist said; but it is not always reliable.
– Colin Fine
Jun 22 '12 at 10:06
add a comment |
I don't think there is a rule for that. Both preffixes un-
and in-
usually apply to adjectives, and that is what you get when you have something-able.
The only "rule" I can remember is that for some verbs, when you want to mean the reverse action, un-
is what you want (undo, unlock, untie...).
2
No, there is a tendency, as @tchrist said; but it is not always reliable.
– Colin Fine
Jun 22 '12 at 10:06
add a comment |
I don't think there is a rule for that. Both preffixes un-
and in-
usually apply to adjectives, and that is what you get when you have something-able.
The only "rule" I can remember is that for some verbs, when you want to mean the reverse action, un-
is what you want (undo, unlock, untie...).
I don't think there is a rule for that. Both preffixes un-
and in-
usually apply to adjectives, and that is what you get when you have something-able.
The only "rule" I can remember is that for some verbs, when you want to mean the reverse action, un-
is what you want (undo, unlock, untie...).
answered Jun 22 '12 at 3:28
community wiki
elias
2
No, there is a tendency, as @tchrist said; but it is not always reliable.
– Colin Fine
Jun 22 '12 at 10:06
add a comment |
2
No, there is a tendency, as @tchrist said; but it is not always reliable.
– Colin Fine
Jun 22 '12 at 10:06
2
2
No, there is a tendency, as @tchrist said; but it is not always reliable.
– Colin Fine
Jun 22 '12 at 10:06
No, there is a tendency, as @tchrist said; but it is not always reliable.
– Colin Fine
Jun 22 '12 at 10:06
add a comment |
I agree with elias that there is no simple rule for this. Something that supports this viewpoint is that a number of words have shown variation over time, or still show variation: a famous example is "inalienable" vs. "unalienable".
I haven't yet found a guide to this, so here are some tendencies that seem valid to me.
If the -able word is based on a monosyllabic verb, use -un.
That is, if you can remove the suffix -able from the adjective and get a monosyllabic English verb, the adjective almost certainly can be negated with un-, and cannot be negated with in-. I only know of two common exceptions, incurable (which is an exception to both parts of the previous sentence: *uncurable has negligible usage) and insolvable (which is currently less frequent than unsolvable).
I would guess that there are more than a hundred examples of words that follow this rule; to start with, you can consider unthinkable, unspeakable, unbearable, unstoppable, unflappable, unshakable, unforeseeable, unsalable, unquenchable, unbridgeable, unworkable, unlovable, unlikable, unwearable, unbreakable, unchainable, unplayable, unwinnable.
Un- is possible even when the verb is of French or Latin origin, as in untouchable, untreatable, unusable, unnotable.
Insuitable in place of unsuitable seems to be obsolete, although it can be found in dictionaries and some old documents.
Minor rules based on the spelling of the end of the word
If the word ends in -kable, use un-.
I don't know of any exceptions to this in modern usage, but the words covered by it are mainly a subset of the words covered by the previous rule. We do also get unremarkable, unmistakable, unrebukable, unattackable. Inattackable seems to have once existed, but I think it's pretty much never used anymore.
If the word ends in -cable, you can use in-.
There are words ending in -cable that can be negated by un- (e.g. uneducable, although apparently some people prefer the sound of ineducable). But I haven't found any -cable adjectives that cannot be negated with in-.
If the word ends in -yable, use un-.
As with -kable, most examples are monosyllables, but we also have undestroyable, unemployable and unenjoyable. In-/im- may be found in unassimilated French words that are occasionally used in English such as impayable, incroyable.
If the word ends in -onable, use un-.
There aren't so many words that end like this, but I think there are enough to identify this as a pattern. Many of these words end more specifically in -ionable or -tionable. Examples: unquestionable, unexceptionable, unmentionable, unobjectionable; unconscionable, unfashionable; unseasonable, unreasonable,
unpardonable. "In-" is not always completely impossible in this context; "inconscionable" exists, but is much less common. "Infashionable" has been used occasionally in the past (it's in the OED), but is now obsolete.
There are some other exceptions to the monosyllabic rule, though they’re generally not synchronically based on anything recognisable within English: inarable, incapable, ineffable, inscrutable, intractable, inviable. Some are recognisable, though, like insolvable. (And who’s Elias? Edit: Oh, I see. The community wiki answer. The name of the poster of a CW answer doesn’t show up in the iOS app, apparently.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
@JanusBahsJacquet: elias wrote the community wiki answer to this question. I meant "a monosyllabic verb in English", although I should maybe edit to clarify: I don't think are, cap(e), eff, scrute and the like are used outside of jocular contexts.
– sumelic
4 hours ago
Well, eff is, but in a different sense. :-p Solve definitely is, though, that’s an actual exception. (Apparently authors of CW answers don’t appear in the iOS app; never noticed that before.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
add a comment |
I agree with elias that there is no simple rule for this. Something that supports this viewpoint is that a number of words have shown variation over time, or still show variation: a famous example is "inalienable" vs. "unalienable".
I haven't yet found a guide to this, so here are some tendencies that seem valid to me.
If the -able word is based on a monosyllabic verb, use -un.
That is, if you can remove the suffix -able from the adjective and get a monosyllabic English verb, the adjective almost certainly can be negated with un-, and cannot be negated with in-. I only know of two common exceptions, incurable (which is an exception to both parts of the previous sentence: *uncurable has negligible usage) and insolvable (which is currently less frequent than unsolvable).
I would guess that there are more than a hundred examples of words that follow this rule; to start with, you can consider unthinkable, unspeakable, unbearable, unstoppable, unflappable, unshakable, unforeseeable, unsalable, unquenchable, unbridgeable, unworkable, unlovable, unlikable, unwearable, unbreakable, unchainable, unplayable, unwinnable.
Un- is possible even when the verb is of French or Latin origin, as in untouchable, untreatable, unusable, unnotable.
Insuitable in place of unsuitable seems to be obsolete, although it can be found in dictionaries and some old documents.
Minor rules based on the spelling of the end of the word
If the word ends in -kable, use un-.
I don't know of any exceptions to this in modern usage, but the words covered by it are mainly a subset of the words covered by the previous rule. We do also get unremarkable, unmistakable, unrebukable, unattackable. Inattackable seems to have once existed, but I think it's pretty much never used anymore.
If the word ends in -cable, you can use in-.
There are words ending in -cable that can be negated by un- (e.g. uneducable, although apparently some people prefer the sound of ineducable). But I haven't found any -cable adjectives that cannot be negated with in-.
If the word ends in -yable, use un-.
As with -kable, most examples are monosyllables, but we also have undestroyable, unemployable and unenjoyable. In-/im- may be found in unassimilated French words that are occasionally used in English such as impayable, incroyable.
If the word ends in -onable, use un-.
There aren't so many words that end like this, but I think there are enough to identify this as a pattern. Many of these words end more specifically in -ionable or -tionable. Examples: unquestionable, unexceptionable, unmentionable, unobjectionable; unconscionable, unfashionable; unseasonable, unreasonable,
unpardonable. "In-" is not always completely impossible in this context; "inconscionable" exists, but is much less common. "Infashionable" has been used occasionally in the past (it's in the OED), but is now obsolete.
There are some other exceptions to the monosyllabic rule, though they’re generally not synchronically based on anything recognisable within English: inarable, incapable, ineffable, inscrutable, intractable, inviable. Some are recognisable, though, like insolvable. (And who’s Elias? Edit: Oh, I see. The community wiki answer. The name of the poster of a CW answer doesn’t show up in the iOS app, apparently.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
@JanusBahsJacquet: elias wrote the community wiki answer to this question. I meant "a monosyllabic verb in English", although I should maybe edit to clarify: I don't think are, cap(e), eff, scrute and the like are used outside of jocular contexts.
– sumelic
4 hours ago
Well, eff is, but in a different sense. :-p Solve definitely is, though, that’s an actual exception. (Apparently authors of CW answers don’t appear in the iOS app; never noticed that before.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
add a comment |
I agree with elias that there is no simple rule for this. Something that supports this viewpoint is that a number of words have shown variation over time, or still show variation: a famous example is "inalienable" vs. "unalienable".
I haven't yet found a guide to this, so here are some tendencies that seem valid to me.
If the -able word is based on a monosyllabic verb, use -un.
That is, if you can remove the suffix -able from the adjective and get a monosyllabic English verb, the adjective almost certainly can be negated with un-, and cannot be negated with in-. I only know of two common exceptions, incurable (which is an exception to both parts of the previous sentence: *uncurable has negligible usage) and insolvable (which is currently less frequent than unsolvable).
I would guess that there are more than a hundred examples of words that follow this rule; to start with, you can consider unthinkable, unspeakable, unbearable, unstoppable, unflappable, unshakable, unforeseeable, unsalable, unquenchable, unbridgeable, unworkable, unlovable, unlikable, unwearable, unbreakable, unchainable, unplayable, unwinnable.
Un- is possible even when the verb is of French or Latin origin, as in untouchable, untreatable, unusable, unnotable.
Insuitable in place of unsuitable seems to be obsolete, although it can be found in dictionaries and some old documents.
Minor rules based on the spelling of the end of the word
If the word ends in -kable, use un-.
I don't know of any exceptions to this in modern usage, but the words covered by it are mainly a subset of the words covered by the previous rule. We do also get unremarkable, unmistakable, unrebukable, unattackable. Inattackable seems to have once existed, but I think it's pretty much never used anymore.
If the word ends in -cable, you can use in-.
There are words ending in -cable that can be negated by un- (e.g. uneducable, although apparently some people prefer the sound of ineducable). But I haven't found any -cable adjectives that cannot be negated with in-.
If the word ends in -yable, use un-.
As with -kable, most examples are monosyllables, but we also have undestroyable, unemployable and unenjoyable. In-/im- may be found in unassimilated French words that are occasionally used in English such as impayable, incroyable.
If the word ends in -onable, use un-.
There aren't so many words that end like this, but I think there are enough to identify this as a pattern. Many of these words end more specifically in -ionable or -tionable. Examples: unquestionable, unexceptionable, unmentionable, unobjectionable; unconscionable, unfashionable; unseasonable, unreasonable,
unpardonable. "In-" is not always completely impossible in this context; "inconscionable" exists, but is much less common. "Infashionable" has been used occasionally in the past (it's in the OED), but is now obsolete.
I agree with elias that there is no simple rule for this. Something that supports this viewpoint is that a number of words have shown variation over time, or still show variation: a famous example is "inalienable" vs. "unalienable".
I haven't yet found a guide to this, so here are some tendencies that seem valid to me.
If the -able word is based on a monosyllabic verb, use -un.
That is, if you can remove the suffix -able from the adjective and get a monosyllabic English verb, the adjective almost certainly can be negated with un-, and cannot be negated with in-. I only know of two common exceptions, incurable (which is an exception to both parts of the previous sentence: *uncurable has negligible usage) and insolvable (which is currently less frequent than unsolvable).
I would guess that there are more than a hundred examples of words that follow this rule; to start with, you can consider unthinkable, unspeakable, unbearable, unstoppable, unflappable, unshakable, unforeseeable, unsalable, unquenchable, unbridgeable, unworkable, unlovable, unlikable, unwearable, unbreakable, unchainable, unplayable, unwinnable.
Un- is possible even when the verb is of French or Latin origin, as in untouchable, untreatable, unusable, unnotable.
Insuitable in place of unsuitable seems to be obsolete, although it can be found in dictionaries and some old documents.
Minor rules based on the spelling of the end of the word
If the word ends in -kable, use un-.
I don't know of any exceptions to this in modern usage, but the words covered by it are mainly a subset of the words covered by the previous rule. We do also get unremarkable, unmistakable, unrebukable, unattackable. Inattackable seems to have once existed, but I think it's pretty much never used anymore.
If the word ends in -cable, you can use in-.
There are words ending in -cable that can be negated by un- (e.g. uneducable, although apparently some people prefer the sound of ineducable). But I haven't found any -cable adjectives that cannot be negated with in-.
If the word ends in -yable, use un-.
As with -kable, most examples are monosyllables, but we also have undestroyable, unemployable and unenjoyable. In-/im- may be found in unassimilated French words that are occasionally used in English such as impayable, incroyable.
If the word ends in -onable, use un-.
There aren't so many words that end like this, but I think there are enough to identify this as a pattern. Many of these words end more specifically in -ionable or -tionable. Examples: unquestionable, unexceptionable, unmentionable, unobjectionable; unconscionable, unfashionable; unseasonable, unreasonable,
unpardonable. "In-" is not always completely impossible in this context; "inconscionable" exists, but is much less common. "Infashionable" has been used occasionally in the past (it's in the OED), but is now obsolete.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
sumelic
46k8108211
46k8108211
There are some other exceptions to the monosyllabic rule, though they’re generally not synchronically based on anything recognisable within English: inarable, incapable, ineffable, inscrutable, intractable, inviable. Some are recognisable, though, like insolvable. (And who’s Elias? Edit: Oh, I see. The community wiki answer. The name of the poster of a CW answer doesn’t show up in the iOS app, apparently.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
@JanusBahsJacquet: elias wrote the community wiki answer to this question. I meant "a monosyllabic verb in English", although I should maybe edit to clarify: I don't think are, cap(e), eff, scrute and the like are used outside of jocular contexts.
– sumelic
4 hours ago
Well, eff is, but in a different sense. :-p Solve definitely is, though, that’s an actual exception. (Apparently authors of CW answers don’t appear in the iOS app; never noticed that before.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
add a comment |
There are some other exceptions to the monosyllabic rule, though they’re generally not synchronically based on anything recognisable within English: inarable, incapable, ineffable, inscrutable, intractable, inviable. Some are recognisable, though, like insolvable. (And who’s Elias? Edit: Oh, I see. The community wiki answer. The name of the poster of a CW answer doesn’t show up in the iOS app, apparently.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
@JanusBahsJacquet: elias wrote the community wiki answer to this question. I meant "a monosyllabic verb in English", although I should maybe edit to clarify: I don't think are, cap(e), eff, scrute and the like are used outside of jocular contexts.
– sumelic
4 hours ago
Well, eff is, but in a different sense. :-p Solve definitely is, though, that’s an actual exception. (Apparently authors of CW answers don’t appear in the iOS app; never noticed that before.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
There are some other exceptions to the monosyllabic rule, though they’re generally not synchronically based on anything recognisable within English: inarable, incapable, ineffable, inscrutable, intractable, inviable. Some are recognisable, though, like insolvable. (And who’s Elias? Edit: Oh, I see. The community wiki answer. The name of the poster of a CW answer doesn’t show up in the iOS app, apparently.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
There are some other exceptions to the monosyllabic rule, though they’re generally not synchronically based on anything recognisable within English: inarable, incapable, ineffable, inscrutable, intractable, inviable. Some are recognisable, though, like insolvable. (And who’s Elias? Edit: Oh, I see. The community wiki answer. The name of the poster of a CW answer doesn’t show up in the iOS app, apparently.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
@JanusBahsJacquet: elias wrote the community wiki answer to this question. I meant "a monosyllabic verb in English", although I should maybe edit to clarify: I don't think are, cap(e), eff, scrute and the like are used outside of jocular contexts.
– sumelic
4 hours ago
@JanusBahsJacquet: elias wrote the community wiki answer to this question. I meant "a monosyllabic verb in English", although I should maybe edit to clarify: I don't think are, cap(e), eff, scrute and the like are used outside of jocular contexts.
– sumelic
4 hours ago
Well, eff is, but in a different sense. :-p Solve definitely is, though, that’s an actual exception. (Apparently authors of CW answers don’t appear in the iOS app; never noticed that before.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
Well, eff is, but in a different sense. :-p Solve definitely is, though, that’s an actual exception. (Apparently authors of CW answers don’t appear in the iOS app; never noticed that before.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
add a comment |
protected by Mari-Lou A Nov 24 '17 at 22:42
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
2
I am unacquainted with any helpful rule, and I fear it is unknowable, although you may find this inconceivable. (Does that word mean what I think it means?)
– James McLeod
Jun 22 '12 at 2:45
2
Possible duplicate of Why “unequal” but “inequality”? Read the top and accepted answer there. Also, check out the questions linked from there, such as Rule to determine when to use the prefix “im” vs. “un” to negate a word starting with “p” and I was wondering why there are multiple prefixes for the same meaning
– RegDwigнt♦
Jun 22 '12 at 7:48
So, net-net, you're looking for a "rule" that would enable the use of "un-able"?
– Hot Licks
3 hours ago