Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site yale.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!yale!folta
From: folta@yale.ARPA (Stephen Folta)
Newsgroups: net.bizarre
Subject: Re: Non-words we already know the meanings of
Message-ID: <134@yale.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 20:18:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: yale.134
Posted: Thu Sep  5 20:18:23 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 07:46:14 EDT
References: <465@petfe.UUCP>
Organization: somewhere else
Lines: 22


	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.
	
	Others might be on-handed, couth...
	
	Any other suggestions?
	
	--Evan Marcus

Here is something I have wondered about:  Everybody knows what HALF-ASSED
means, but what does it mean to be FULLY-ASSED?  Is it better or worse than
being half-assed?

Stephen Folta
decvax!yale!folta