[net.nlang] On "orphaned" words.

gjerawlins@watdaisy.UUCP (Gregory J.E. Rawlins) (04/03/85)

<DDT>
	A friend and I play a type of word association game that I
made up in which you think up a word and your opponent has to think
of another one which is related to the previous in some (usually
obscure) way. Your job is then to find the connection and find
another word which is related to the second and so on.
	During one of these marathon sessions the word "to" came up
and we noticed that the word "fro" in the phrase "to and fro" has
no independent meaning in English. i.e. fro has no meaning
outside of the phrase to and fro.
	Questions : Why is this? Are there any other such orphaned words?
	(You might even call them "appendix" words, by analogy with
our appendix :-)
		greg.

-- 
Gregory Rawlins CS Dept.,U.Waterloo,Waterloo,Ont.N2L3G1 (519)884-3852
gjerawlins%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet                              CSNET
gjerawlins%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa              ARPA
{allegra|clyde|linus|inhp4|decvax}!watmath!watdaisy!gjerawlins   UUCP

fwb@siemens.UUCP (04/05/85)

wreak

as in " to wreak havoc".

urban@spp2.UUCP (Mike Urban) (04/05/85)

In article <7169@watdaisy.UUCP> gjerawlins@watdaisy.UUCP writes:

>	During one of these marathon sessions the word "to" came up
>and we noticed that the word "fro" in the phrase "to and fro" has
>no independent meaning in English. i.e. fro has no meaning
>outside of the phrase to and fro.
>	Questions : Why is this? Are there any other such orphaned words?

Well, there are certainly words that are so specialized that they
are basically unusable in any but a single context.  The one that
comes to mind for me is "defray", a word which cannot apply sensibly
to any direct object other than "expense" or "cost". 

Excuse me, I have to go defray the cat.

	Mike
-- 

   Mike Urban
	{ucbvax|decvax}!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!urban 

"You're in a maze of twisty UUCP connections, all alike"

friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (04/05/85)

In article <7169@watdaisy.UUCP> Gregory Rawlins writes:
>	During one of these marathon sessions the word "to" came up
>and we noticed that the word "fro" in the phrase "to and fro" has
>no independent meaning in English. i.e. fro has no meaning
>outside of the phrase to and fro.
>	Questions : Why is this? Are there any other such orphaned words?
>	(You might even call them "appendix" words, by analogy with
>our appendix :-)
>		greg.
>

	It *did* have an independent once upon a time(perhaps
about the time of Shakespeare?). It was almost certainly an antonym
of "to", that is it probably meant "away from/from". It has fallen out
of use, being retained only in the idiomatic saying "to and fro".
This retention of archaic words in idioms is quite common.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen

wcs@ho95b.UUCP (Bill Stewart) (04/08/85)

fwb@siemens.UUCP suggests that "wreak",  as in " to wreak havoc",
is orphaned.  The word also shows up in the several other forms:

	wrought	- past tense, e.g. wrought iron
	-wright - one who wreaks things, e.g. shipwright, wheelwright

barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) (04/09/85)

A discussion group at SDC turned up the case of SAKE (as in "for the
sake of").  I don't think it's ever used outside of this context.

Sake originated as a term for lawsuit or quarrel or fighting cause.

--Lee Gold

rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (04/09/85)

In article <7169@watdaisy.UUCP> gjerawlins@watdaisy.UUCP (Gregory J.E. Rawlins) writes:
>... we noticed that the word "fro" in the phrase "to and fro" has
>no independent meaning in English. i.e. fro has no meaning
>outside of the phrase to and fro.
>	Questions : Why is this? Are there any other such orphaned words?

There is a term linguists use "cran morpheme" for basically the same
phenomenon. A morpheme is the atomic language unit that bears meaning,
e.g. a word root, a prefix, a suffix, which cannot be decomposed into
any smaller units that have meaning. The term "cran morpheme" is based
on  the compound "cranberry", where "berry" has a meaning,
but the remainder "cran" is not used elsewhere in English. Actually,
Ocean Spray has changed this with their Crangrape and Cranapple drinks.
-- 


Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California
{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob

	    	       _^__
	     	     ~/ \_.\
        _           ~/    \_\
      ~/ \_________~/   
     ~/  /\       /\ 
       _/  \     /  \
     _/      \ _/    \ 
              \      /	

brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (04/09/85)

<to and fro>

	Along the same lines, how about words that are always negated?
such as:

	incognito	vs	cognito
	invincible	vs	vincible
	impregnable	vs	pregnable
	impervious	vs	pervious

Merlyn Leroy
"That's Credible!"

plw@mgwess.UUCP (Pete Wilson) (04/10/85)

	Then, of course, there is "hunker" as in 'I'd better
hunker down and get to work'. Is this a localism or is it
prevalent elsewhere......

gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (04/10/85)

--
> Well, there are certainly words that are so specialized that they
> are basically unusable in any but a single context.  The one that
> comes to mind for me is "defray", a word which cannot apply sensibly
> to any direct object other than "expense" or "cost". 
> 
> Excuse me, I have to go defray the cat.
> 
> 	Mike

On the way to that status are "figments," which are the exclusive
property of one's imagination.

Read any good figments lately?
-- 
                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******  10 Apr 85 [21 Germinal An CXCIII]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-7188     ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken   *** ***

mgh@hou5h.UUCP (Marcus Hand) (04/11/85)

Merlyn Leroy writes that some words are only seen in their negative
forms and cites "impervious" as an example.  Well, geologists use
pervious quite alot.   But in principle, I agree, there are quite a few
(indignant, inalienable, etc) but perhaps the origins of some of these
words do not involve a negative prefix (un-dergo, un-derstand, in-digent).
some words beginning "non" of course,have a connection with 9.

There must also be many words which are only seen with a "re-" prefix:
recognize, resolute, Remy Martin...

I gotta go...

-- 
			Marcus Hand	(hou5h!mgh)

rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (04/12/85)

>> Well, there are certainly words that are so specialized that they
>> are basically unusable in any but a single context.  The one that
>> comes to mind for me is "defray", a word which cannot apply sensibly
>> to any direct object other than "expense" or "cost". 

Two people arguing....

	Person #1: You're just casting aspersions!

	Person #2: Well, what else can you do with them?


Imagine this classified ad in the "for sale" section:

	Aspersions. Only cast once. 555-1111, evenings, ask for Joe.


(These are taken from a friend of mine; I can't take credit.)
-- 


Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California
{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob

	    	       _^__
	     	     ~/ \_.\
        _           ~/    \_\
      ~/ \_________~/   
     ~/  /\       /\ 
       _/  \     /  \
     _/      \ _/    \ 
              \      /	

li51x@sdcc3.UUCP (li51x) (04/14/85)

What about the Yiddish-English phrases:

rain shmain
fancy shmancy
etc.

If it weren't for the different sense of meaning between "rain" and
"rain shmain," I'd be tempted to explain these as word games.

Any thoughts?
--Michelle Gross

jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (04/14/85)

> A discussion group at SDC turned up the case of SAKE (as in "for the
> sake of").  I don't think it's ever used outside of this context.
> 
> Sake originated as a term for lawsuit or quarrel or fighting cause.
> 
> --Lee Gold

How about "sakes alive"?  Does anyone know where this expression comes
from?
-- 
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
aka Swazoo Koolak

gh@utai.UUCP (Graeme Hirst) (04/14/85)

> The term "cran morpheme" is based on  the compound "cranberry", where "berry" has a meaning,
> but the remainder "cran" is not used elsewhere in English.

The usual story is that "cranberry" is derived from "craneberry", because the
shape of the plant's flower resembles a crane's head.  At Ocean Spray's
cranberry museum in Plymouth, Mass., they give away badges showing the flower
and a crane.
-- 
\\\\   Graeme Hirst    University of Toronto	Computer Science Department
////   utcsri!utai!gh  /  gh.toronto@csnet-relay  /  416-978-8747

werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (04/16/85)

> In article <7169@watdaisy.UUCP> Gregory Rawlins writes:
> >	During one of these marathon sessions the word "to" came up
> >and we noticed that the word "fro" in the phrase "to and fro" has
> >no independent meaning in English. i.e. fro has no meaning
> >outside of the phrase to and fro.

	On a similar vein, consider the antonym of towards, it is "away from."
Some time ago, a few of us wanted to start a campaign to invent the word
"frowards." (Sounds better than fromwards - I didn't even think of fro) but
it looked too much like forwards mispelled, and none of us had the motivation.

	One other category of pseudo-orphans, words that are negated, but
whose un-negated form is non-sensical (I had a slew of these but the only one
I can think of right now is "alienable right"/opp. of inalienable)

-- 
				Craig Werner
				!philabs!aecom!werner
		What do you expect?  Watermelons are out of season!

brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (04/22/85)

>How about "sakes alive"?  Does anyone know where this expression comes from?
Mazda?

Merlyn Leroy :-)
PS 'sake(s)' is probably from 'forsaken' but I dunno...