john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) (09/17/85)
The only one I could think of is "destructable", the opposite of "indestructable". Oddly enough, this one lends itself to the non-word "structable". (I did like "robotoid", though.) -- 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?"
kmo@ptsfa.UUCP (ken olsen) (09/24/85)
Keywords:
Non-words? What are you if you are "ept"?
Are you not "adept" or not "inept"?
------------
| gait kpr | { dual, ihnp4, qantel }!ptsfa!kmo
------------
"Quotable quote." -- Quotable Sourcemanheimer@nbs-amrf.UUCP (Ken Manheimer) (09/27/85)
> Keywords: > > Non-words? What are you if you are "ept"? > Are you not "adept" or not "inept"? > > ------------ > | gait kpr | { dual, ihnp4, qantel }!ptsfa!kmo > ------------ > "Quotable quote." -- Quotable Source Those of you out there who've read John Brunner's "Stand on Zanzibar" (among the finest works in science fiction) may notice the origins of the word 'eptification' that brunner coined for the process applied to the gentle ~hero~ to convert him into an extremely competent (somewhat twisted) killer. At least i figured that's what Brunner intended. Ken Manheimer ...!seismo!nbs-amrf!manheimer or manheimer@nbs-amrf.uucp (Everything leaks.) (oops i forgot to diverge, umm, how about: Q: If a millipede a pint and a centipede a quart, how much can a precipice? A: A precipice is good for a few drops. (Courtesy of Frank))
barth@tellab1.UUCP (Barth Richards) (10/02/85)
In article <460@aero.ARPA> mcguire@aero.UUCP (Rod McGuire) 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. Actually the words goose and geese, and the strange relationship between the singular and plural forms of this word can be traced back to Anglo-Saxon. Most Anglo-Saxon nouns were declined* in fairly regular patterns. However, there were a few troublesome nouns that, being subversive-type words, decided to follow their own Marxist, pinko-commie, unAmerican paths and declinded themselves in their own unique ways. This red scurge continues even today, and can be seen in such words as foot (AS fot), and goose (AS gos). *Decensions were the endings put on nouns and adjectives which indicated what function within the sentence the nonoun performed, or in the case of adjectives, to what noun they were attached. The declension of foot went as follows: singular plural nominative (subject) fot fet accusative (direct object) fot fet genative (possessive) fotes fota dative/instrumental (indirect object/ means by which something is done) fet fotum Similarly declined in the Anglo-Saxon word gos (goose): singular plural N gos ges A gos ges G gose gosa D/I ges gosum So, you can see how these commie-liguistic subversive conspiracies get started, and once they get under way, there's just no stopping them. Lyndon LaRouche for President! The Gipper