Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: On "orphaned" words.
Message-ID: <383@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Apr-85 11:47:25 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.383
Posted: Fri Apr  5 11:47:25 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Apr-85 04:48:03 EST
References: <7169@watdaisy.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 22
Summary: 

In article <7169@watdaisy.UUCP> Gregory Rawlins 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?
>	(You might even call them "appendix" words, by analogy with
>our appendix :-)
>		greg.
>

	It *did* have an independent once upon a time(perhaps
about the time of Shakespeare?). It was almost certainly an antonym
of "to", that is it probably meant "away from/from". It has fallen out
of use, being retained only in the idiomatic saying "to and fro".
This retention of archaic words in idioms is quite common.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen