Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!urban
From: urban@spp2.UUCP (Mike Urban)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: On "orphaned" words.
Message-ID: <523@spp2.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Apr-85 11:15:17 EST
Article-I.D.: spp2.523
Posted: Fri Apr  5 11:15:17 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Apr-85 03:27:07 EST
References: <7169@watdaisy.UUCP>
Reply-To: urban@spp2.UUCP (Mike urban)
Distribution: net
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Lines: 22
Summary: 

In article <7169@watdaisy.UUCP> gjerawlins@watdaisy.UUCP writes:

>	During one of these marathon sessions the word "to" came up
>and we noticed that the word "fro" in the phrase "to and fro" has
>no independent meaning in English. i.e. fro has no meaning
>outside of the phrase to and fro.
>	Questions : Why is this? Are there any other such orphaned words?

Well, there are certainly words that are so specialized that they
are basically unusable in any but a single context.  The one that
comes to mind for me is "defray", a word which cannot apply sensibly
to any direct object other than "expense" or "cost". 

Excuse me, I have to go defray the cat.

	Mike
-- 

   Mike Urban
	{ucbvax|decvax}!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!urban 

"You're in a maze of twisty UUCP connections, all alike"