Monday, August 11, 2008

Words That Should Reasonably Exist

We talked about couth before--a word that was created via back-formation. I suppose it's become common enough that we must grant it the right to exist. But what about other "words" that should reasonably be formed by eliminating an apparent prefix or suffix? Questions from a previous blog include:

Is a pleased person gruntled?
Are nice people ruthful?
May an intelligent person be described as becile?
Would someone who makes himself obvious be going cognito?

Here are a few more...

If surgery is performed reattached a severed head, is it called a capitation?
If an arm or leg is reattached, is the patient being membered?
Is someone who can easily be overcome considered vincible?
If something is in motion, might it be described as ert?
If something causes harm, is it nocuous?

All of these are examples of what are called orphan negatives--words that have no positive form. There are more of these than you realize. In fact, author Jack Winter wrote the following story implementing a surprising number of orphan negatives in The New Yorker (July 25, 1994). I found it here.

How I Met My Wife
It had been a rough day, so when I walked into the party I was very chalant, despite my efforts to appear gruntled and consolate.

I was furling my weildy umbrella for the coat check when I saw her standing alone in a corner. She was a descript person, a woman in a state of total array. Her hair was kempt, her clothing shevelled, and she moved in a gainly way.

I wanted desperately to meet her, but I knew I'd have to make bones about it, since I was travelling cognito. Beknowst to me, the hostess, whom I could see both hide and hair of, was very proper, so it would be skin off my nose if anything bad happened. And even though I had only swerving loyalty to her, my manners couldn't be peccable. Only toward and heard-of behavior would do.

Fortunately, the embarrassment that my maculate appearance might cause was evitable. There were two ways about it, but the chances that someone as flappable as I would be ept enough to become persona grata or a sung hero were slim. I was, after all, something to sneeze at, someone you could easily hold a candle to, someone who usually aroused bridled passion.
So I decided not to risk it. But then, all at once, for some apparent reason, she looked in my direction and smiled in a way that I could make head or tails of.

I was plussed. It was concerting to see that she was communicado, and it nerved me that she was interested in a pareil like me, sight seen. Normally, I had a domitable spirit, but, being corrigible, I felt capacitated—as if this were something I was great shakes at—and forgot that I had succeeded in situations like this only a told number of times. So, after a terminable delay, I acted with mitigated gall and made my way through the ruly crowd with strong givings.
Nevertheless, since this was all new hat to me and I had not time to prepare a promptu speech, I was petuous. Wanting to make only called-for remarks, I started talking about the hors d'oeuvres, trying to abuse her of the notion that I was sipid, and perhaps even bunk a few myths about myselfs.

She responded well, and I was mayed that she considered me a savoury character who was up to some good. She told me who she was. "What a perfect nomer," I said, advertently. The conversation became more and more choate, and we spoke at length to much avail. But I was defatigable, so I had to leave at a godly hour. I asked if she wanted to come with me. To my delight, she was committal. We left the party together and have been together ever since. I have given her my love, and she has requited it.

4 comments:

Bartwithaprice said...

Wow. Your easily leaves me totally plussed. Love ya.

Bartwithaprice said...

In the earlier post, scratch the word "easily" and insert the word "essay." And, excuse me, while I take this foot out of my mouth...easily.

OZWOZ2002@hotmail.com said...

I have always wondered what a "jective" was. I have always wanted to call that part of speech and "adnoun" or even better and addnoun, but then we would also have to have an addverb. Prefixes rule!

I loved your piece. Thankyou.OZWIZ

Palomides said...

Since it is passingly related to this topic, is there a term for intensifiers that sound like negators but aren't? Here are a few examples that I've gathered:
-disgruntled - in this case, I believe the prefix is intended to imply "utterly" meaning of "dis"
-inebriated - yes, "ebriated" was once a word for "drunk"
-industrious
-inflamable
-ingenious - "genoius" meaning "bring into being"
-intelligent – actually from “inter”+“leger” (among choices)
-intense/intent
-inured – from “in use” thus “accustomed to” or “unaffected by”
-irregardless – disputed “real” word

How about words where prefixes are used but the root isn't? Or where are reverse prefix might apply
-Overwhelm and underwhelm are words but whelm is no longer used
-If you can presume, can you postsume?
-If one can be hyperactive, can another be hypoactive?

-If one can be a hypocrite, can one be a hypercrite? “Hypocrite” comes from a word meaning “playing a part” – hypo (under) + “distinguish, separate”, so hypocrisy is an act that one cannot distinguish as false
-If you can have a hypothesis, can you have a hyperthesis? Hypothesis literally means “the underlying rules that one assumes to explain one’s thesis”

-Disinterested vs. uninterested – To be disinterested in something means to not be biased about something (i.e. to have no personal stake in a particular side of an issue). To be uninterested means to not be interested in or intrigued by something.
-iterate - Not used often unlike “reiterate”
-gruesome – What’s a grue? (“shudder”)
-hapless – What’s a hap? (luck, “happy” & “haphazard”)


Lastly (again, because I don't know where else to post this), can you think of any demonyms (words derived from the names of groups) that mean something different than the original association? (E.g. "Welsh" does mean people or things from Wales; but "welsh" is also used to denote reneging on a bet. [Warning, most of the ones, I've discovered usually have a negative connotation so this might offend a few people]
So far, I have:
-boetian – dull, obtuse person; from a pastoral community outside of sophisticated Athens
-cretin – from deformed people found in the Alps, word derived from “Christian” inplying they were still human despite deformities
-“going Dutch”
-goth or gothic – A Gothic cathedral was originally intended as an insult. To the humanists of the Renaissance, the art and architecture of the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries was extremely old-fashioned. Since the Goths were regarded as the prototype of uncivilized barbarians, calling something "Gothic" meant truly barbaric or ugly.
-to gyp, gypsy – corruption of Egyptian (falsely believed to be their origin)
-“irish” – to add alcohol
-pharisee – sanctimonious or hypocritical person, from a Jewish sect
-philistine – smuggly uncultured (from students rallying against their “enemies”)
-sophistry – bad reputation for subtle (deceiving) methods of arguing, from one of a class of famous Greek philosophers/teachers althought the name the group took was not a demonym
-stoic – from the Greek philosophical school believing that one should avoid joy, grief and passions in order to obtain wisdom.
-sybarite – person devoted to luxury and pleasure
-thug – after the Indian thugee religious sect who strangled strangers as offerings to their god
-vandal
-welsh – as in “welsh on a bet”
-Yiddish – shortening of the German term “judisch deutsch”

-Demonyms from myth
-amazon
-myrmidon – faithful, unquestioning officer. From ants that were transformed into men and followed Achilles