Comments by "EebstertheGreat" (@EebstertheGreat) on "The mysterious case of the "lost positive"" video.

  1. "Whelm" does not mean "capsize" but rather "submerge" or "cover." So "overwhelm" isn't "overturn" but rather "cover over" (meaning the same thing as "whelm"). If a wave whelms or overwhelms a boat, that doesn't necessarily mean that it turns it over, just that it completely covers the deck. So the figurative sense of "whelm" (or "overwhelm") comes from the idea of something emotionally affecting you so greatly that you are completely engulfed by it. Similarly, an army can overwhelm its opponents' defenses like a wave overtopping a levee. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to "capsize" an opponent's defenses. "Underwhelm" doesn't have this connotation, because the original meaning of "whelm" is almost lost, and it is just the negative form of the figurative use of "overwhelm." The word "flammable" is etymologically justifiable as meaning "capable of flaming," i.e. able to be on fire. Etymologically, "inflammable" means "capable of being set on fire." Clearly anything that can be on fire must be capable of being set on fire and vice-versa, so they effectively mean the same thing. But you could nitpick and say that kindling is more easily set on fire than a log, while both burn equally well once ignited, so perhaps there is some distinction (but not one realized in practice). "Kempt" is just a normal (albeit not especially common) word. You mostly see it in the phrase "well-kempt." "Kempt" is clearly a past participle of something (kemban), but the finite form of the verb has been lost. The same thing happened with the word "wont," though the meaning shifted and no longer matches the grammatical form. That makes "unwonted" a double past participle, being formed as the past participle of a past participle.
    1