evan@petfe.UUCP (Evan Marcus) (09/02/85)
Anyone ever consider all the words that aren't words, but if these words
were words, we'd already know what they meant? (Huh?)
I think the best way to illustrate is with examples:
We know what non-chalant is, but how about chalant. Chalant is not a word,
yet if it were, it would clearly be the opposite of non-chalant.
Others might be on-handed, couth...
Any other suggestions?
--Evan Marcus
(with this I am retiring my somewhat long, yet amusing .signature)
--
{ucbvax|decvax}!vax135!petsd!petfe!evan
...!pedsgd!pedsga!evan
It's raisins that make Post Raisin Bran so wonderful,
It's raisins that make Post Raisin Bran so different,
It's raisins that make Post Raisin Bran so raisiny,
More raisins, lots more raisins, more raisins than you have ever seen before.
If you like raisins, lots more raisins, you'll like Post Raisin Bran mo-o-ore.
It's probably Post's trademark, but do you care?andrew@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers) (09/04/85)
In article <465@petfe.UUCP> evan@petfe.UUCP (Evan Marcus) writes: >Anyone ever consider all the words that aren't words, but if these words >were words, we'd already know what they meant? (Huh?) > >I think the best way to illustrate is with examples: > >We know what non-chalant is, but how about chalant. Chalant is not a word, >yet if it were, it would clearly be the opposite of non-chalant. The cunning linguists call these "lost positives". Some of these (e.g., "innocent" <-> "nocent") actually were words at one time, but have fallen into disuse (or datuse) over the years. National Lampoon ran a list of such "non-words" a few years back... stay tuned and I'll find the issue and post a few. AWR
folta@yale.ARPA (Stephen Folta) (09/06/85)
Anyone ever consider all the words that aren't words, but if these words were words, we'd already know what they meant? (Huh?) I think the best way to illustrate is with examples: We know what non-chalant is, but how about chalant. Chalant is not a word, yet if it were, it would clearly be the opposite of non-chalant. Others might be on-handed, couth... Any other suggestions? --Evan Marcus Here is something I have wondered about: Everybody knows what HALF-ASSED means, but what does it mean to be FULLY-ASSED? Is it better or worse than being half-assed? Stephen Folta decvax!yale!folta
gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) (09/06/85)
> > The cunning linguists call these "lost positives". ----------------- Indeed. Net.bizarre has gone to his head... -- Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene Burroughs Corp. Austin Research Center cmp.barc@utexas-20.ARPA (512) 258-2495
crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) (09/06/85)
In article <465@petfe.UUCP> evan@petfe.UUCP (Evan Marcus) writes: >Anyone ever consider all the words that aren't words, but if these words >were words, we'd already know what they meant? (Huh?) > ... >We know what non-chalant is, but how about chalant. Chalant is not a word, >yet if it were, it would clearly be the opposite of non-chalant. > >Others might be on-handed, couth... That's no way to form new words. This suggestion indicates a complete lack of comprension of some very basic linguistic concepts. I would really be plussed if you were less derstanding. -- Jim Crandell, C. S. Dept., The University of Texas at Austin {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!crandell
mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) (09/09/85)
WARNING: If you are not *fluent* in English this will all be dreadfully
cryptic!
>> nonchalant --gives-- chalant
> innocent --originally negative of-- nocent
Then there are the other back-formations. For example, "pea".
Originally, I understand, there was a word "pease" which meant the small
round green (collective, ie, plural) vegetable we all know. The e got
dropped and on the (false) assuption the result was a plural we now have
"pea" in the language. There's a similar example, some legal term I
can't recall at the moment.
How about "excest" or "outcest", referring to sex with someone not
related to you? (for the unimaginitive: derived from "incest")
I recall reading of a book titled "Ounce, Dice, Trice" once.
Presumably "digineous [to]" means "not native [to]"?
And, of course, if you want someone to stay away from your party
you send them an exvitation.
--
der Mouse
{ihnp4,decvax,akgua,etc}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse
philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse
Hacker: One responsible for destroying /
Wizard: One responsible for recovering it afterwardbrad@SU-ISL.ARPA (09/09/85)
In article <465@petfe.UUCP> evan@petfe.UUCP (Evan Marcus) writes: >Anyone ever consider all the words that aren't words, but if these words >were words, we'd already know what they meant? (Huh?) > >I think the best way to illustrate is with examples: > >We know what non-chalant is, but how about chalant. Chalant is not a word, >yet if it were, it would clearly be the opposite of non-chalant. > >Others might be on-handed, couth... couth really is a word! (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary): couth (adj) : sophisticated, polished. couth (n) : polish, refinement.
bill@persci.UUCP (09/10/85)
In article <134@yale.ARPA> folta@yale.ARPA (Stephen Folta) writes: > Anyone ever consider all the words that aren't words, but if these > words were words, we'd already know what they meant? (Huh?) > Others might be on-handed, couth... Whoa! Looking in my dictionary.. couth (kooth) Obs. past & past part. of CAN; specif., part. adj. Known; familiar; noted. Cf. UNCOUTH Obsolete it may be, but it's a word. Other bizarre definitions from the dictionary: Y'all know that "baggie" is a brand name for a certain little plastic bag usually used for sandwiches, etc.. Well, I found it in the dictionary (this dictionary is only a year older than I am, it certainly predates wide-spread use of plastics): bag'gie (bag'i; beg'i) n. Chiefly Scot. The belly. ..out of one Baggie into another, yum!.. -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
blarson@oberon.UUCP (Bob Larson) (09/22/85)
What about the lost singulars? Perhap there isn't one.
--
Bob Larson
Arpa: Blarson@Usc-Ecl.Arpa
Uucp: {the (mostly unknown) world}!ihnp4!sdcrdcf!oberon!blarson
{several select chunks}!sdcrdcf!oberon!blarson
^ uscvax no longer needed heremcguire@aero.ARPA (Rod McGuire) (09/24/85)
In article <120@oberon.UUCP> blarson@oberon.UUCP (Bob Larson) writes: >What about the lost singulars? Perhap there isn't one. There are the non existant "semantic" singulars: underpant, tweezer, scissor, and glass (1/2 of a pair of eye-glasses). One might also be able to make a case for phonetic singulars such as a "gee" = one of the members of a flock of geese.
faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel Faigin) (09/24/85)
Actually, I've always wondered the following:
What is the plural of asparagus?
What is the singular of broccoli?
Daniel
--
UUCP: {akgua allegra ihnp4 hplabs sdcsvax trwrb cbosgd}!sdcrdcf!faigin
ARPA: sdcrdcf!faigin@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA --or-- sdcrdcf!faigin@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
W: SDC, 2525 Colorado MD 91-01; Santa Monica CA 90406; (213) 820-4111 x6393
H: 11743 Darlington Avenue #9; Los Angeles CA 90049; (213) 826-3357
The views and opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of
my employer, except the janitor who agrees with everything I write. I hope
for his early recovery and release.reid@dciem.UUCP (David Brake c/o Reid Ellis) (09/26/85)
I've always thought of myself as a couth youth myself,
but people look at me funny when I tell them so. I am
also one of the few people who supports establishmentarianism
David Russell Brake I, Esq.
Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
A medely of extemporanea;
And love is a thing that can never go wrong,
And I am the King of Roumania.
--
--
Reid Ellis "Roads? Where we're going, who needs _roads_?"
{{allegra,decvax,duke,floyd,linus}!utzoo,{ihnp4,utzoo}!utcsri}!dciem!reid
This message brought to you courtesy of the Poslfit Committeejims@hcrvax.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) (09/27/85)
what about `ept' ? someone can be `inept', is someone who is `ept' good at something ? Jim in the fish bowl
review@drutx.UUCP (MillhamBD) (09/27/85)
The plural of half = whole. -------------------------------------------- Brian Millham AT & T Information Systems Denver, Co. ...!ihnp4!drutx!review
scott@cxsea.UUCP (Scott Matthews) (09/27/85)
Daniel writes: > What is the singular of broccoli? It is, of course, "broccolo", from the Italien. But I bet you can't eat just one. -- Scott A. Matthews
manheimer@nbs-amrf.UUCP (Ken Manheimer) (09/29/85)
> In article <120@oberon.UUCP> blarson@oberon.UUCP (Bob Larson) writes: > > >What about the lost singulars? Perhap there isn't one. > > There are the non existant "semantic" singulars: underpant, tweezer, scissor, > and glass (1/2 of a pair of eye-glasses). > > One might also be able to make a case for phonetic singulars such as > a "gee" = one of the members of a flock of geese. *** REPLACE THE SLIME WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Then there's the everpopular fent (astray from the other fence) and a bok (one of many box) to corral it in.
john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) (09/30/85)
]From: faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel Faigin) ]Message-ID: <2362@sdcrdcf.UUCP> ]Organization: System Development Corp. R+D, Santa Monica ] ]Actually, I've always wondered the following: ] ]What is the plural of asparagus? ] ]What is the singular of broccoli? A better one yet: What is the adverb form of "friendly" ? -- Name: John Ruschmeyer US Mail: Monmouth College, W. Long Branch, NJ 07764 Phone: (201) 222-6600 x366 UUCP: ...!vax135!petsd!moncol!john ...!princeton!moncol!john ...!pesnta!moncol!john Disclaimer: Monmouth College is a mecca for diverse opinions. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that the above opinions are those of anyone but me. "Are we gonna be starcrossed lovers or just good friends?"
fred@gymble.UUCP (Fred Blonder) (10/01/85)
> From: scott@cxsea.UUCP (Scott Matthews) > > Daniel writes: > > What is the singular of broccoli? > > It is, of course, "broccolo", from the Italien. > But I bet you can't eat just one. No. The ``broccolo'' is a small flute-like musical instrument made from hollowed-out broccoli stalks. -- All characters mentioned herein are fictitious. Any similarity to actual characters, ASCII or EBCDIC is purely coincidental. Fred Blonder (301) 454-7690 Fred@Maryland.{ARPA,CSNet} seismo!umcp-cs!fred
andrew@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers) (10/03/85)
In article <1693@dciem.UUCP> reid@dciem.UUCP (David Brake) writes: >I've always thought of myself as a couth youth myself, >but people look at me funny when I tell them so. I am >also one of the few people who supports establishmentarianism. For more of this sort of thing, check out "Toward an Expanded English Language" in the Fall Potpourri Issue (Sept. '79, I think) of the National Lampoon... a very eptly-written article!
marvinm@ttidcb.UUCP (Marvin Moskowitz) (10/04/85)
In article <120@oberon.UUCP> blarson@oberon.UUCP (Bob Larson) writes: >What about the lost singulars? Perhap there isn't one. > >-- >Bob Larson If there are no lost singulars, I guess you have had a lot of experience putting on one pant (=:
bill@persci.UUCP (10/04/85)
In article <363@gymble.UUCP> fred@gymble.UUCP (Fred Blonder) writes: > > From: scott@cxsea.UUCP (Scott Matthews) > > Daniel writes: > > > What is the singular of broccoli? > > It is, of course, "broccolo", from the Italien. > > But I bet you can't eat just one. >No. The ``broccolo'' is a small flute-like musical instrument made from >hollowed-out broccoli stalks. You're close. It is actually a reed instrument (the best modern reeds are made from 20 year old McDonald's straws), and the name is homophonous with the music, uh.. sound, it emits. -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
samson@h-sc1.UUCP (gregory samson) (10/04/85)
What about "der"? If you're on top of something, are you "der", as opposed to "under"? "Derneath" should work similarly. --- G. T. Samson The Evil MicroWizard gts@wjh12.ARPA
showard@udenva.UUCP (showard) (10/06/85)
> Actually, I've always wondered the following: > > What is the plural of asparagus? asparagi > > What is the singular of broccoli? broccolus > > Daniel > --Mr. Blore, the DJ who would not die -- udenva!showard -- "You never know; some things disguise themselves as food."