Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!ut-sally!crandell
From: crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell)
Newsgroups: net.bizarre
Subject: Re: Non-words we already know the meanings of
Message-ID: <2820@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 15:31:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.2820
Posted: Fri Sep  6 15:31:19 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Sep-85 01:22:46 EDT
References: <465@petfe.UUCP>
Reply-To: crandell@sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell)
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 16

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?)
> ...
>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...

That's no way to form new words.  This suggestion indicates a complete
lack of comprension of some very basic linguistic concepts.  I would
really be plussed if you were less derstanding.
-- 

    Jim Crandell, C. S. Dept., The University of Texas at Austin
               {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!crandell