in-able ? un-able?












8














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"?










share|improve this question




















  • 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
















8














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"?










share|improve this question




















  • 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














8












8








8


2





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"?










share|improve this question















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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








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














  • 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










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















9














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.






share|improve this answer





























    1














    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...).






    share|improve this answer



















    • 2




      No, there is a tendency, as @tchrist said; but it is not always reliable.
      – Colin Fine
      Jun 22 '12 at 10:06



















    1














    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.








    share|improve this answer























    • 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










    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









    9














    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.






    share|improve this answer


























      9














      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.






      share|improve this answer
























        9












        9








        9






        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.






        share|improve this answer












        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.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Jun 22 '12 at 4:18









        tchrist

        108k28290463




        108k28290463

























            1














            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...).






            share|improve this answer



















            • 2




              No, there is a tendency, as @tchrist said; but it is not always reliable.
              – Colin Fine
              Jun 22 '12 at 10:06
















            1














            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...).






            share|improve this answer



















            • 2




              No, there is a tendency, as @tchrist said; but it is not always reliable.
              – Colin Fine
              Jun 22 '12 at 10:06














            1












            1








            1






            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...).






            share|improve this answer














            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...).







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            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














            • 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











            1














            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.








            share|improve this answer























            • 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
















            1














            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.








            share|improve this answer























            • 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














            1












            1








            1






            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.








            share|improve this answer














            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.









            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            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


















            • 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





            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?



            Popular posts from this blog

            Morgemoulin

            Scott Moir

            Souastre