Date:    Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:18:13 -0500
<br>From:    Mark Mandel  Mark[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]DRAGONSYS.COM 
<br>Subject: standardization of non-standard forms
<br>
<br>Larry Horn  laurence.horn[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]YALE.EDU  writes:
<br>
<br>   
<br>The redundant use of negative pre- and suffix in words like
<br>
<br>unboundless     unguiltless     unmatchless     unshameless
<br>                        undauntless     unhelpless      unmerciless
<br>        unshapeless
<br>
<br>--each amounting to 'Xless' or 'unXful'--was apparently quite common in the
<br>16th and 17th centuries, as of course is the redundant affixation of
<br>unthaw, unloose(n), debone, dissever, etc.
<br>
<br>   
<br>
<br>I seem to recall reading that Whorf analyzed some of this latter set
<br>differently, with a prefixal meaning of something like separation or
<br>release rather than negation, specifically with "un-" in "unloose",
<br>"unravel", and perhaps that "unthaw". (Can anyone give a citation for
<br>this?) "Dis-", of course, carries a meaning of separation or scattering in
<br>many words ("disseminate", "disperse"), and separation is certainly part of
<br>the meaning of "dissever". And "debone" can be analyzed with a nominal root
<br>rather than a verbal one, using "de-"  'cause [obj.] to be free of', as in
<br>"debug", "delouse". I prefer this transparent analysis to one that adds a
<br>redundant negating "de-" to the denominal verb "bone", in part because the
<br>zero verbalization of "bone" makes the latter analysis rather opaque.
<br>
<br>       Mark A. Mandel : Senior Linguist : mark[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]dragonsys.com
<br>    Dragon Systems, Inc. : speech recognition : +1 617 965-5200
<br> 320 Nevada St., Newton, MA 02160, USA : http://www.dragonsys.com/
<br>           Personal home page: http://world.std.com/~mam/
<br>