Submitted by goossun on May 9, 2004


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?


Sort by

Oh, AC, that's passe... the "one word" necesary has now been coined. By Goossun. :)

0 vote Vote!  •  Permalink  •  Report Abuse

Can it be that such a concept requires more than one word to be correctly articulated in English?

0 vote 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!

0 vote Vote!  •  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.

0 vote Vote!  •  Permalink  •  Report Abuse

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.

0 vote Vote!  •  Permalink  •  Report Abuse

Your Comment