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...