Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsunami
Why shouldn't I?
"Invaluable" means "not having a value" in the sense that the value is so great that it cannot be measured. ("Not having a value" is different to "having no value". Don't confuse with "not having any value", which *is* the same as "having no value".)
These two words do not mean different things. They actually mean the same, but in different amounts. "Invaluable" is a superlative of "valuable".
I understand what you are trying to do: to point out that a word can mean something that people may not expect. When you say that "this object is invaluable", then people will know that that it hase value or worth beyond imagination. As far as I know, "invaluable" is never used to describe something without worth. One would use a word such as "worthless".
Therefore:
"I think this object is valuable." -> "I think this object is invaluable."
This substition does not change the meaning of the sentence, which is that the object has at least some value, but it does increase the value of the object. (To an unimaginably high level, that is.)
The same is true for "priceless", which is a synonym for "invaluable".
|
Price is synonymous with
worth, yet
priceless and
worthless are antonyms.
The point I was making is that, according to the usual rules of English words,
in- is a negative prefix. E.g.,
inconclusive is the opposite of
conclusive,
ineligible is the opposite of
eligible. But then English has some words that don't follow the pattern, like
invaluable and
inestimable and
inflammable.
It's a quirky, fascinating language, and whether you approve or not, just as
in- sometimes doesn't mean what it's "supposed" to mean,
I couldn't care less and its apparent opposite,
I could care less, mean pretty much the same thing.