Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site grkermi.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!genrad!grkermi!andrew
From: andrew@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers)
Newsgroups: net.bizarre
Subject: Re: Non-words we already know the meanings of
Message-ID: <599@grkermi.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Sep-85 12:57:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: grkermi.599
Posted: Wed Sep  4 12:57:09 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 10:53:40 EDT
References: <465@petfe.UUCP>
Reply-To: andrew@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers)
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Lines: 17

In article <465@petfe.UUCP> evan@petfe.UUCP (Evan Marcus) writes:
>Anyone ever consider all the words that aren't words, but if these words
>were words, we'd already know what they meant?  (Huh?)
>
>I think the best way to illustrate is with examples:
>
>We know what non-chalant is, but how about chalant.  Chalant is not a word,
>yet if it were, it would clearly be the opposite of non-chalant.

The cunning linguists call these "lost positives".  Some of these (e.g.,
"innocent" <-> "nocent") actually were words at one time, but have fallen 
into disuse (or datuse) over the years.

National Lampoon ran a list of such "non-words" a few years back... stay
tuned and I'll find the issue and post a few.

AWR