Positively Seeking Orphaned/Unpaired Negatives.

Algot Runeman · Post by **Algot Runeman** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:47 pm

I propose a search suitable for this crowd of avid readers.

The dynamic English language gains and loses words all the time. That isn't surprising.

But what about the words that only partly disappear?

It is common to change a positive word into a negative by using a prefix.
Common becomes the negative Un-common for example.

Common and uncommon are a positive/negative pair that are in regular use.

Some negatives have remained without their positive form.
Will you help compile a complete/incomplete list of these word orphans?

Here is my list so far:

Disgruntled - Gruntled?
I am not happy that there is no positive sense available here.

Disparage - Parage?
Should we only express a negative opinion of someone or something?

Incongruous - Congruous?
Is "congruous" incompatible with its negative form?
Congruous is actually a good word, "corresponding in character or kind", but it doesn't quite match the negative.

Indiscriminate - Discriminate (Discriminating?)
The positive here is actually used, but has a very negative meaning itself and isn't an adjective. It is used as a verb. Hence "we should not discriminate against" a group of people. That may be why it isn't used as a positive for indiscriminate.

Inviolate - Violate (Violated?)
Maybe this should be left for you to look up in a dictionary.

Nondescript - Descript? (Distinct?)
I have the feeling that I need more details about this one.

Unmentionables - Mentionables?
This one strikes me funny. Of course, there cannot be a positive here. Underwear is not to be mentioned in polite company (guess that leaves me out of polite company)

Happy reading.
--Algot

the grim squeaker · Post by **the grim squeaker** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:59 am

Dis-pair?

the grim squeaker · Post by **the grim squeaker** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:01 am

Re-wind?

Algot Runeman · Post by **Algot Runeman** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:38 am

Grim,
(May I be so bold as to address you only by your first name?)

Dispair sounds good to me; pairing (actually, I have; happily married), certainly doesn't sound like the sense of a positive opposite of dispair.

However, can't a person wind something? Watching a VHS video "winds" the tape so we must rewind before returning it. I am also certain that Blockbuster staff would be seriously displeased if you were to unwind the tape...very negative reaction, I bet.

What do you think of:
Diminish - Minish?
According to Dictionary.com, there is a word minish, but it apparently means to make smaller, too.

Keep 'em coming!
--Algot

the grim squeaker · Post by **the grim squeaker** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:43 am

Weeeell, if they both mean pretty much the same thing, surely they're not opposites?

I think maybe you could only wind something once, after that its being re-wound?

Dis-gusting?

the grim squeaker · Post by **the grim squeaker** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:45 am

if you want to call me by my first name, that would technically be the

Algot Runeman · Post by **Algot Runeman** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:01 am

The Grim,
(Using the Russian style)

My sense of this challenge is to list the negative words that are orphaned/unpaired, lacking a positive wordform that is actually in routine use. Therefore diminish seems to fit because I have never heard anyone say they would "minish the impact of" anything.

I agree, though that there are words that fail to make it as negatives in spite of their prefix. The one that always comes immediately to mind is:

Inflammable - Flammable which mean essentially the same thing like the diminish/minish pair. Both words in this pair are in common use, of course, so we cannot use Inflammable for an unpaired orphan. Besides, we must consider nonflammable which is the usual negative for flammable...but I digress.

Maybe we need a sub-topic called something like "failed negatives" to handle those examples.

Disgust is great. I do wonder if it is related to the Spanish, "Me gusto mucho." Perhaps only the negative came into English.

Keep 'em coming!
--Algot

the grim squeaker · Post by **the grim squeaker** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:03 am

In-evitable?

umsolopagas · Post by **umsolopagas** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:19 pm

Innerwear (sp.)

Post by **Kvetch** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:39 pm

Ruthless.

I remember reading about how one of the few 'surviving', for lack of a better word, uses of the unmodified word "ruth" appears in Milton (Lycidas, according to Wikipedia):

Look homeward, Angel, now, and melt with ruth

---

Inviolate - Violate (Violated?)
Maybe this should be left for you to look up in a dictionary.

Interestingly, I am familiar with at least one case where violate as an adjective:

The various colleges of the University of London have (or their student unions have) mascots of various designs. At least at Imperial, they fall into two categories - inviolate (such as Boanerges, a 1902 vintage car), meaning that they should not be stolen by students, and violate (such as Theta the thermometer - which isn't the dinky little thing it sounds) which means they can. It is a standard construction to talk about "Spanner, the violate mascote of the CGCU". I could natter on, but if anyone cares, here is an article.

Post by **gollum** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:13 pm

Distinguished ?

the grim squeaker · Post by **the grim squeaker** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:38 am

Re-gardless

the grim squeaker · Post by **the grim squeaker** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:35 am

De-crepid

the grim squeaker · Post by **the grim squeaker** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:54 am

Im-pulsive

the grim squeaker · Post by **the grim squeaker** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:06 am

Re-vamp

spiphany · Post by **spiphany** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:50 pm

I'd advise a little caution with the etymologies here. Just because something looks like a negative prefix/suffix doesn't mean that it's actually functioning as one. 'in-' can mean either 'not' or 'into,' for example. Furthermore, sometimes a word will be borrowed wholesale from Latin, prefix and all, but the root is not available for word formation -- it is 'non-productive,' as for example, the 'environ' in 'environment'.

despair: from de (away) + sperare (to hope) (nothing to do with pairing)
impulse: from Latin impellere, formed from in (into) + pellere, to push, drive
regardless: the negative affix here is -less. regard is from re- (intensifier) + Old French garder, to look.

Not to discourage the discussion; I just wanted to inject the observation that things are sometimes more complicated than they look (which is what makes language so endlessly fascinating).

the grim squeaker · Post by **the grim squeaker** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:05 am

Re-hash?

umsolopagas · Post by **umsolopagas** » Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:49 am

spiphany wrote:I'd advise a little caution with the etymologies here. Just because something looks like a negative prefix/suffix doesn't mean that it's actually functioning as one. 'in-' can mean either 'not' or 'into,' for example. Furthermore, sometimes a word will be borrowed wholesale from Latin, prefix and all, but the root is not available for word formation -- it is 'non-productive,' as for example, the 'environ' in 'environment'.

despair: from de (away) + sperare (to hope) (nothing to do with pairing)
impulse: from Latin impellere, formed from in (into) + pellere, to push, drive
regardless: the negative affix here is -less. regard is from re- (intensifier) + Old French garder, to look.

Not to discourage the discussion; I just wanted to inject the observation that things are sometimes more complicated than they look (which is what makes language so endlessly fascinating).

Too true.

I was itching to add resplendent.

Algot Runeman · Post by **Algot Runeman** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:27 am

It is gratifying to see the good response to this topic.

I know that I lived through my teens with the Webster's Collegiate at hand for the many words I didn't immediately grasp as I read for homework and pleasure. Should we expect the same of ourselves as we propose additions to the list of matchless orphan negatives?

Do we further need links to a quotation from a book that uses the proposed negative? Does that go too far? It would rely on a superior memory or good lookup skills. I do appreciate Kvetch's reference to the archaic use of 'ruth' as a match for the common (too common in people?) use of ruthless.

The thoughtful comments by spiphany who recommended caution with etymology are on point, too.

I cannot help but think that this challenge will lead us to better grasp of our beloved English and a richer appreciation of our reading.

After a bit more research, with the recent suggestions, and periodically after that, I'll post what seems to be the agreed list of orphaned negatives.

Keep 'em coming.
--Algot

the grim squeaker · Post by **the grim squeaker** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:27 am

Un-requited?

Algot Runeman · Post by **Algot Runeman** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:08 pm

I am feeling both rejected and dejected. I have really liked some of the words proposed. I feel like a curmudgeon with a stick as I throw back some of the words.

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary , disgruntle seems to originate with gruntle, a form of the verb grunt, but the prefix has a positive(!) usage: "very" which surprised me. I had never heard the prefix dis- used to mean anything but a negative.

Regard is not very 'common' in speech (is our society really too negative?) though it is still sung "Give my Regards to Broadway" and is used sometimes at the end by those who still communicate by letter(!), "Best regards,"

With regret, I disregard regardless, but it is going to qualify for the list soon. It seems inevitable.

Decrepit (like me, I guess) is just a rotten negative word (and a negative state of being) with the prefix coming as de- with the meaning "of", attached to crepit which means to "creak/rattle around" like an old person. In essence, there never was a positive form of this word. Or rather, it is positively, downright awful to be decrepit!

And yet, in spite of everything, the list grows.
disgust
disparage
incongruous
indiscriminiate
inevitable
inviolate
nondescript
ruthless
unmentionables
unrequited

Keep 'em coming.
--Algot

the grim squeaker · Post by **the grim squeaker** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:03 am

Dis-stain

Post by **Kvetch** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:19 am

I rather thought that requited was still in use?

tollbaby · Post by **tollbaby** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:20 am

I've used it in conversation recently....

umsolopagas · Post by **umsolopagas** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:47 pm

tollbaby wrote:I've used it in conversation recently....

I haven't.