Irrisorio: Laughable
The idea that you’re not good enough or you shouldn’t try is laughable.
La idea de que no seas suficientemente bueno o no lo deberías intentar es irrisorio.
I don’t really like this word. It seems like it would be condescending in most contexts; if X is funny, it’s ironic or, you know, funny. But if it’s laughable, it’s like you’re laughing at it. I struggled to come up with a positive example of this word that wouldn’t be really similar to the above.
However, what inspired me to write this post was the following rarity. I will first write it out in Spanish, then in English. I couldn’t translate exactly into English because I’m going to be talking about etymology and grammar and our rules for formulating words are different. While I could translate to talk about the Spanish grammar, that’s not really what the rest of the post is about; rather, it’s about the fact that the Latin prefix “ir” does not always entail negation–rather, it can be an alternate spelling of the prefix “in,” whereas we do not always simply add a prefix to the beginning of a word but sometimes ought to change the prefix’s spelling in order for it to fit neatly onto a word or so that its pronunciation is straightforward. (It’s not obvious to me that these changes in spelling are always justified; as we could see below, “inradiate” wouldn’t be particularly difficult to pronounce nor spell.)
El prefijo “ir” es de privación o negación. Por ejemplo, “irrevocable:” que no se puede revocar.
Entonces tenemos “irrisible” o “irrisorio.” Las dos de las cuales significan, más o menos, digno de risa o que provoca risa. Ahora, si buscamos “risible,” también significa digno de risa.
Señoras y señores, tenemos un problema.
Resolución:
A”irrisorio” erróneamente se le atribuye el prefijo “ir.” El prefijo perteneciente es “in,” que quiere decir “hacia adentro.” Por alguna regla que desconozco, cuando “in” se adjunta a una palabra que empieza con “r,” el n se debe convertir en r. (No estudié la gramática ni la linguística sino la hermeneútica).
Otro ejemplo: “irradiar.” Esta palabra no quiere decir que la cosa no radie, sino que radia desde adentro hacia afuera.
The prefix “ir” is about privation or negation. For example, “irrevocable:” that which cannot be revoked. “Irreversible,” that which cannot be reversed.
Then we have “irrisible.” In English, this word either was never officially recognized or has fallen out of usage. The closest I’ve found of official recognition of the word is a definition, supposedly in the 1913 Webster’s Dictionary, which was “not risible.” That is actually intuitive according to the rules of English but I do wonder whether it is accurate or proper–consider the following.
For a counterexample, we may examine “irradite.” This word does follow the pattern seen in the Spanish “irradiar,” which comes from the Latin irradiāre – “in” + “radiāre.” The prefix “in” means something like “from within.” Thus, to irradiate should be to radiate from within; in fact, as we can see from the archaic definitions in the American Heritage dictionary, it did used to mean “to become radiant.” Now, strangely, the opposite is the case; it is transitive–to irradiate is to do something to something else; whereas, on the other hand, “to radiate” is now the verb that we most commonly use in the intransitive sense (although we can also use it transitively).
