Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ptsfa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!ptsfa!rob
From: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: On "orphaned" words.
Message-ID: <555@ptsfa.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 12:32:35 EST
Article-I.D.: ptsfa.555
Posted: Fri Apr 12 12:32:35 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Apr-85 02:16:29 EST
References: <7169@watdaisy.UUCP> <523@spp2.UUCP> <375@ihu1m.UUCP>
Reply-To: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacific Bell, San Francisco
Lines: 32

>> 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". 

Two people arguing....

	Person #1: You're just casting aspersions!

	Person #2: Well, what else can you do with them?


Imagine this classified ad in the "for sale" section:

	Aspersions. Only cast once. 555-1111, evenings, ask for Joe.


(These are taken from a friend of mine; I can't take credit.)
-- 


Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California
{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob

	    	       _^__
	     	     ~/ \_.\
        _           ~/    \_\
      ~/ \_________~/   
     ~/  /\       /\ 
       _/  \     /  \
     _/      \ _/    \ 
              \      /