Question!

Jul. 25th, 2004 09:40 am
conuly: (Default)
[personal profile] conuly
Why don't some words have logical opposites? We have unruly and ruthless, but one can't be ruly or ruth (okay, that word DOES exist, it means mercy, but it's obsolete). Very few people use the word canny (just me, as far as I can tell, and only around family).

Or what about words that shouldn't have opposites, but should exist, like gress (progress, ingress, egress, regress, agressive, digress, congress....) meaning... um... okay, I know I could just look up the Latin, but let's say it means "go". I like go. It's a fun game. Or movement! It's a fun movement too!

Or what about whelm? That's a real word. It means to turn over dirt or somesuch. Why do we no longer whelm the garden?

*sighs*

Well, there's my plan for the next year. Introduce new-old words back into the English language, via carefully removing prefixes.

Date: 2004-07-26 12:22 pm (UTC)
rachelkachel: (Default)
From: [personal profile] rachelkachel
You were talking about logical opposites. Noncombustible works, of course, but logically inflammable should be the opposite of flammable. I know the origins of the words, I'm just complaining.

Profile

conuly: (Default)
conuly

January 2026

S M T W T F S
     12 3
4 5 6 78 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 1617
18 1920 21222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 19th, 2026 08:14 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios