Talk:ingenuine

Validity

There seems to be some confusion with the two meanings of "in" attached onto these "gen" words. Apparently most dictionaries don't list "ingenuine" as a word, but the obvious sense in its parts has made its use so common that it's found its way into wiktionary. I think it should stay there.

Dictionaries want to take the "in" that means "in" (in comparison to 'invest' or 'infatuated')to "genuous" to mean 'in the mental state of being newly generated, or perhaps being gently bred. For the opposite of "candid, unreserved, innocent, sincere, (obs) noble" they want to tack on an additional prefix: "dis", making "disingenuous" mean "not candid or sincere"

However, there is another "in" that corresponds to prefix "un" found in readily comparable "insincere" or "invalid". This is the one used for "ingenuine." Not that this will do anything to settle the matter, but for the well-meaning wiki-editor who comes to this page in a tussy at this false entry, it might be productive to consider how sensical it would be to interpret "insincere" (which will obviously be a constant source of comparison for 'ingenuine') as meaning "in the state of sincerity."

Perhaps the best solution would be to take all latin instances of "in" meaning "in" and change them to "en" and take all latin instances of "in" meaning "un" and change them to "un" leaving words like "enemy" to slip by unconciously abiding by old rules. But it seems more reasonable to realize that for the case of "ingenuine", the analogy with "insincere" is just too strong, and this development is simply going to happen.

— This unsigned comment was added by 130.49.148.20 (talk) at 19:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC).

The rule that has yet to be discussed in the above is the use of the double negative in the English language. In the Koine Greek the use of a second negative ("dis" and "in" as in "disingenuine") strengthens the negative. Thus, in this example the meaning should be "really NOT genuine." But, in English the use of a double negative should cancel-out both prefixes rendering the word to mean the root - in this case it should simply be "genuine." However, it cannot be discounted that the word ingenious is obviously IN-fused with genius. Leaving the us with a good example ... language is a living thing. — This unsigned comment was added by 72.56.216.131 (talk) at 13:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC).

To: Unsigned

 The double negative thing has me thinking after some time considereing this issue. Perhaps if "disingenuine" were explained as "failing to be ingenuine" when "ingenuine" means "not" genuine(as opposed to "being" genuine) then an actor for example who is making an effort to "not" be genuine to him\herself in an effor to portray a character or as a "liar" may do when lying, then it would make more sense to to have "ingenuine" as it is and "disingenuine" is then justifeid as a double negative.

 For the record, I dont' recall wanting to use or having been taught the use of "in" or "dis" with the word ingenuine prior to today. Tonight I considered this word very much while doing character work for a play I am in, Orson's Shadow as Kenneth Peacock Tynan. Kenneth, My character, portrays another fictional character (a Maid) whom eventually portrays another fictional character (a Gardener) at the dame moment. I.e. Kenneth portrays a Maid portraying a Gardener.  An example question is "Do my characters seem ingenuine at any point while I portray the maids or gardener?" After looking it up , reading the above etc. I determined in my case that saying it presented conundrum. Who was I trying to be "genuine" to?

 Perhaps one can be "disingenuined" when acting as a character or lying. They become ingenuine if they are trying to be theri character but show too much of themselves as the original character but then they do something as that character that makes them more "disingenuine" in turn. They fail to be genuine to their character exposing to much of their genuine self, hence they are "ingenuine" making them NOT genuine in relation to a secondary feeling or purpose. 

Mitchfortier 03:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion on this Talk page as to whether the entry in question is "ingenuine", "ingenuous", "ingenious", or for that matter, "ingenue". Each of these words means something different.