Talk:Unpaired word

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Con and pro are antonyms, but not in that context - which is why the joke is funny. (con/contra: against vs pro : for). Morwen - Talk 11:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't explained it very well there (linguistics are not my strong point) but that was what I was attempting to say. If you can help to make it clearer then that would be great. violet/riga (t) 11:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for making it clearer. violet/riga (t) 11:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The pairing of "inept" is "apt"; such a change of vowel is quite common in latin. −Woodstone 17:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What about disgusted and gusted? From what I've read, apparently "gusted" is linguistically acceptable, although it would fall under "rarely used antonym". I'd love for Wikipedia to have a very long list of unpaired words. Batshua 23:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Story 2 Suffixes 3 Absurd 4 Nocent, couth

[edit] Story

There's a relevant classic ultra-short story "How I Met My Wife" by Jack Winter (published in the New Yorker magazine July 25, 1994) -- a simple Google search will turn up hundreds of copies out there -- but I'm not sure how it could be used in relationship to Wikipedia... AnonMoos 11:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the story. At the very least it could be pillaged for all its unpaired words.

"It had been a rough day, so when I walked into the party I was very chalant, despite my efforts to appear gruntled and consolate.

I was furling my weildy umbrella for the coat check when I saw her standing alone in a corner. She was a descript person, a woman in a state of total array. Her hair was kempt, her clothing shevelled, and she moved in a gainly way.

I wanted desperately to meet her, but I knew I’d have to make bones about it, since I was travelling cognito. Beknowst to me, the hostess, whom I could see both hide and hair of, was very proper, so it would be skin off my nose if anything bad happened. And even though I had only swerving loyalty to her, my manners couldn’t be peccable. Only toward and heard-of behavior would do.

Fortunately, the embarrassment that my maculate appearance might cause was evitable. There were two ways about it, but the chances that someone as flappable as I would be ept enough to become persona grata or a sung hero were slim. I was, after all, something to sneeze at, someone you could easily hold a candle to, someone who usually aroused bridled passion.

So I decided not to risk it. But then, all at once, for some apparent reason, she looked in my direction and smiled in a way that I could make head or tails of.

I was plussed. It was concerting to see that she was communicado, and it nerved me that she was interested in a pareil like me, sight seen. Normally, I had a domitable spirit, but, being corrigible, I felt capacitated—as if this were something I was great shakes at—and forgot that I had succeeded in situations like this only a told number of times. So, after a terminable delay, I acted with mitigated gall and made my way through the ruly crowd with strong givings.

Nevertheless, since this was all new hat to me and I had not time to prepare a promptu speech, I was petuous. Wanting to make only called-for remarks, I started talking about the hors d’oeuvres, trying to abuse her of the notion that I was sipid, and perhaps even bunk a few myths about myselfs.

She responded well, and I was mayed that she considered me a savoury character who was up to some good. She told me who she was. “What a perfect nomer,” I said, advertently. The conversation became more and more choate, and we spoke at length to much avail. But I was defatigable, so I had to leave at a godly hour. I asked if she wanted to come with me. To my delight, she was committal. We left the party together and have been together ever since. I have given her my love, and she has requited it."

Aaadddaaammm 07:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A link to that article would be appropriate in the "see also" section that's currently empty. Very amusing. --Keflavich 01:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suffixes

I don't understand the suffixes section. You can take the -less off ageless, and age still makes sense. Same with countless, helpless, leafless, peerless, toothless, voiceless, frightful and rightful. Why are they included? Aaadddaaammm 07:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no opposite to them, such as ageful, countful or rightless. violet/riga (t) 21:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

But they do have related words. In, the prefix set the opposite words are all the real word minus the prefix. See how the two sets seem fundamentally different? Aaadddaaammm 00:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Lots of words don't have opposites, like cabbage, for example. Aaadddaaammm 00:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

But they appear as if they should have an opposite because of the use of such a suffix. violet/riga (t) 16:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Rightless does, in fact, exist, though. —Nightstallion (?) 23:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And the opposite of cabbage is obviously Belgium.... —  MusicMaker5376 19:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Absurd

Wouldn't absurd qualify as well? Ab- meaning against, and surd having no meaning in this context.... —  MusicMaker5376 19:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nocent, couth

Why is "nocent" supposedly "not an exact antonym"? It means "causing injury"; an innocent person is by definition one who hasn't caused injury.

On another note, I've heard "couth" used quite often, so I'm not sure if "uncouth" fits the definition of an unpaired word.

Also, could it be helpful to specify in what era these words' pairs were used? I believe "nocent" is Middle English, although I recently came across it as late as John Bramhall. Graymornings (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)