31/10/2024
WORDS, WORDS, WORDS
There are several English words that don't exist without their prefixes or suffixes.
There is f**kless, for example but "f**k" only exists as a euphemism in "Father Ted" where it means something quite different. The "f**k" in "f**kless" is an abbreviation for "effect." Someone who is f**kless is ineffectual (incapable of causing an effect).
The "ruth" in "ruthless" has dropped out of popular usage. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ruth as "a feeling of pity, distress, or grief." This is what someone who is ruthless is lacking.
A word that seems that it ought to exist but doesn't is "gruntled." There is "disgruntled," but not, for some reason, "gruntled." The word expresses unvoiced discontent and comes from the noises that a person in this frame of mind might make, "grunt, grunt, grunt."
“I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.” ― P.G. Wodehouse, The Code of the Woosters
There is "disconcerted" but not "concerted." We say "overwhelmed," but never "whelmed," "disgusted" but not "gusted." A theory may be "debunked," but I've never heard of a theory being "bunked."
"Nocent", coming from the Latin "nocere," "to harm," looks like it ought to mean "causing harm," but it doesn't exist. "Innocent," "not causing harm" does.
After a terrible accident, someone might emerge "unscathed," but we never hear of someone coming out of an accident, "badly scathed." The word does exist though and has just dropped out of common usage.
Can anyone think of any more?
