> I thought about this for a bit before you posted the confirmation that Issachar was correct. This is less unfortunate than if the word came about as I had thought, but it's still not ideal. I was wondering what should be different, and then it hit me. The word "inflame" should actually be "enflame," thus preserving the prefix "in" for negation and using the prefix "en" for what it's already used for in words like "enlarge," "ennoble," "enliven," "enshroud," "enrich," "enrapture," "enshrine," and many more. I wonder if "inflame" even *was*, at one time, "enflame," but it certainly should have been.
>
> Then again, English is notorious for exceptions to its rules, so who am I to pick on this one?

You're right, of course, on both counts:

1) It would make much more sense for the word to be/to have been "enflame". That would contribute to the consistency and organization of English language rules.

2) Criticizing a particular word or feature of English for being inconsistent and illogical is a little silly, like criticizing a stew for having too many ingredients with different flavors. No one sat down and planned it all out; people just threw in whatever was at hand.

I *love* the convoluted nature of English, personally. It's difficult, inconsistent, and resolutely defies easy comprehension, and therefore, when you actually read and learn enough to use the language correctly, there's a greater feeling of satisfaction. In some instances English is almost arcane, a gnosis belonging only to the few. That's an elitist sort of thing to say, maybe, but at bottom, how many of us don't enjoy knowing a secret?

Iss "shhhhhhh....." achar