asa@rayssd.UUCP (01/26/84)
Subject: Re: 'lost positives' Newsgroups: net.nlang <> Here are some thoughts on the problems of 'missing positives' and other esoteric issues in natural languages. I hope they help- it is fun to speculate on the diachronic variations of languages, especially when there is a weird mixture, as in English. With regard to 'missing positives, searching the dictionary under the prefixes 'in_', 'un_' and 'mis_' reveals some interesting changes. Try these, for example: 'inveterate'- descended from the Greek 'etos' (year); we have 'veterans', but does one refer to ones grandparents as 'vetus'? 'intransigent'- have you heard it said that two groups 'transigized'? 'unseemly'- does anyone say that an act is 'seemly' (except in a few dialects)? 'uncanny' - look up 'canny' for a real mis-mash! 'ungainly'- what does 'gainly' look like? 'untouchable'- who are the 'touchables'? 'unruly'- anyone ever heard of a crowd referred to as 'ruly' Note: we might 'rediscover this for AI, and have 'ruly' or 'unruly' expert systems, n'est pas? 'misbegotten'- are you referred to as 'begotten'? 'miscegenation'- when two people of the same skin ahve sex, do we usually say that they are 'cegenating'? Enough of that! I want to introduce some new food for thought. How about 'skewed' positives, as in the following examples? 'untowards', 'disbarred', 'disrobe', 'increase', 'myopia', 'presbyopia' 'hypermetropia' These words have the interesting propery that a 'positive', or 'stem' word is still in use but not in the way that the word would suggest, or the stem has never been used. There are lots of these, also. How about 'skewed' (or 'lost') iteratives, as in 'refractory', or 'recalcitrant'? How about 'rediscoverd' iteratives, as in 'iterate' and 'reiterate'? This example shows an interesting tendency towards the use of redundant prefixes and suffixes when the stems are not in general use. How about 'lost negatives' (or 'opposites'), as in 'enflame' vs 'inflame' 'deceive' 'deduce' 'ensure' vs 'insure'? The first and fourth examples show the impact of the loss of precise enunciation in American speech. This effect is also reflected in the uncertainty of Americans in spelling words ending in suffixes such as 'ment'. That is an intersting discussion all by itself.
andyb@dartvax.UUCP (Andy Behrens) (01/31/84)
> 'misbegotten'- are you referred to as 'begotten'? > 'miscegenation'- when two people of the same skin have sex, do we > usually say that they are 'cegenating'? "Begotten" may not be in common use, but it still exists, perhaps kept alive by the Biblical references to an "only-begotten Son". And it has a corresponding verb form "beget". As for "miscegenation", the prefix is not "mis-", but "misce-", and the whole word literally means "mixed begetting". -- Andy Behrens East Thetford, Vermont {decvax,linus}!dartvax!andyb
plaskon@hplabsc.UUCP (Dawn Plaskon) (02/10/84)
One can indeed behave in a seemly fashion as any reader of Jane Austen knows. It means as it seems to, to behave in manner which accords with approved standards of good taste. Not lost at all, merely not in common usage any longer. I do use it as well as many other words which might be considered outdated in this day of :-) rash permissiveness and lowered societal standards of seemly behaviour. :-) If you remain unsure, ask Miss Manners.
emrath@uiuccsb.UUCP (02/15/84)
#R:rayssd:-36200:uiuccsb:10500017:000:59 uiuccsb!emrath Feb 14 15:11:00 1984 If "gruntled" was already mentioned, I'll get disgruntled.