A rarely used English word?
Mok-Kong Shen
I looked up the word 'infeasible' in the following dictionaries but
failed to find it:
The concise oxford dictionary of current English, 1964.
Dictionary of contemporary English, Langenscheidt-Longman, 1978.
Langenscheidts Groï¿œwï¿œrterbuch, Englisch-Deutsch, 1985.
Collins compact Engslish learner's dictionary, 2004.
Collins concise dictionary, 1999.
The new international Webster's comprehensive dictionary, encyclopedic
edition, 2003.
On the other hand, Merriam-Webster's collegiate thesaurus, 1993, has
that word.
Is the word rarely used, or else why is it not listed in so many
dictionaries?
M. K. Shen
Peter T. Daniels
> I looked up the word 'infeasible' in the following dictionaries but
> failed to find it:
>
> The concise oxford dictionary of current English, 1964.
>
> Dictionary of contemporary English, Langenscheidt-Longman, 1978.
>
>
> Collins compact Engslish learner's dictionary, 2004.
>
> Collins concise dictionary, 1999.
>
> The new international Webster's comprehensive dictionary, encyclopedic
> edition, 2003.
>
> On the other hand, Merriam-Webster's collegiate thesaurus, 1993, has
> that word.
>
> Is the word rarely used, or else why is it not listed in so many
> dictionaries?
If it's in the dictionary, it's because the prefix "in-" is
productive. There's no particular reason to use the word in preference
to "not feasible," but you can coin it anew if you need it for euphony
(or prosody).
Joachim Pense
>
> I looked up the word 'infeasible' in the following dictionaries but
> failed to find it:
>
> Is the word rarely used, or else why is it not listed in so many
> dictionaries?
>
I see the word fairly often in computer science contexts, describing a task
that could be done with a given toolset, but only with unappropriate
effort.
Joachim
Mok-Kong Shen
> If it's in the dictionary, it's because the prefix "in-" is
> productive. There's no particular reason to use the word in preference
> to "not feasible," but you can coin it anew if you need it for euphony
> (or prosody).
A problem particularly for the non-natives like me is that there
are other prefixes like 'im-', 'un-' and 'non-' that might probably
also qualify and one doesn't know which is the one allowed. Similar
to Pense I actually have met that word quite often in technical
literatures and had also used it myself a couple of times without
consulting a dictionary. Recently however I wanted to be sure that
my writing was correct and was greatly confused by failure to find
it even in the big Websters.
M. K. Shen
M. K. Shen
António Marques
I would say that it can only be used that way if there is no way the
effort in question could ever be spared; if it's merely a matter of
high cost, but the cost could be met in that context, then it's not
infeasible.
Joe Fineman
> A problem particularly for the non-natives like me is that there
> are other prefixes like 'im-', 'un-' and 'non-' that might probably
> also qualify and one doesn't know which is the one allowed.
"Im-" is merely the form "in-" takes before labial consonants;
"imfeasible" is therefore impossible. "In-" versus "un-" is indeed a
messy subject; Fowler's MEU s.v. "in- and un-" mentions some patterns
that are helpful in guessing, and gives a list of established &
recommended cases. Roughly speaking, "in-" goes with Latin-derived
words, and "un-", being native, is more widely applicable; but that is
too rough to be useful. "Non-" is the most widely applicable and the
most neutral (suggesting mere negation or exclusion rather than
oppositeness, reversal, or the like), but it is often unidiomatic
because an in- or un- word exists & is established.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: To teach is to learn twice. :||
Christian Weisgerber
> I looked up the word 'infeasible' in the following dictionaries but
> failed to find it:
[...]
> Is the word rarely used,
No, it is not particularly rare.
> or else why is it not listed in so many dictionaries?
I think many dictionaries save space by leaving out entries with
obvious negation prefixes; you might want to check if they list
"feasible".
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
LEE Sau Dan
Mok-Kong> I looked up the word 'infeasible' in the following
Mok-Kong> dictionaries but failed to find it:
Mok-Kong> The concise oxford dictionary of current English, 1964.
Mok-Kong> Dictionary of contemporary English, Langenscheidt-Longman,
Mok-Kong> 1978.
Mok-Kong> Langenscheidts Großwörterbuch, Englisch-Deutsch, 1985.
Mok-Kong> Collins compact Engslish learner's dictionary, 2004.
Mok-Kong> Collins concise dictionary, 1999.
Mok-Kong> The new international Webster's comprehensive dictionary,
Mok-Kong> encyclopedic edition, 2003.
Mok-Kong> On the other hand, Merriam-Webster's collegiate thesaurus,
Mok-Kong> 1993, has that word.
Mok-Kong> Is the word rarely used, or else why is it not listed in
Mok-Kong> so many dictionaries?
But my free German<->English dictionary software "ding" does have it.
This word is frequently used in computer science. Also, in software
development projects, the first step usually involves a "feasibility
study".
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
LEE Sau Dan
>> Is the word [infeasible] rarely used, or else why is it not
>> listed in so many dictionaries?
Peter> If it's in the dictionary, it's because the prefix "in-" is
Peter> productive. There's no particular reason to use the word in
Peter> preference to "not feasible,"
Do dictionaries have "impossible"?
Peter> but you can coin it anew if you need it for euphony (or
Peter> prosody).
Coin it, e.g., as "unfeasible"? "non-feasible"?
And don't forget traps like "invaluable" and "inflammable". (I've met
native speakers who tried to (mis-)'educate' me that the former is an
antonym of "valuable"!!!!!!!!! I had to tell them to check in a
dictionary themselves -- an L2 speaker teaching a native speaker a
non-foreign word!)
LEE Sau Dan
Joe> Roughly speaking, "in-" goes with Latin-derived words, and
Joe> "un-", being native, is more widely applicable; but that is too
Joe> rough to be useful. "Non-" is the most widely applicable and
Joe> the most neutral (suggesting mere negation or exclusion rather
Joe> than oppositeness, reversal, or the like), but it is often
Joe> unidiomatic because an in- or un- word exists & is established.
Joe> -- --- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
Both "in-" and "non-" can go with "flammable", but result in opposite
meanings!
LEE Sau Dan
>> Is the word ["infeasible"] rarely used, or else why is it not
>> listed in so many dictionaries?
Joachim> I see the word fairly often in computer science contexts,
Joachim> describing a task that could be done with a given toolset,
Joachim> but only with unappropriate effort.
...........................^^
:)
John Atkinson
1527) ) and "infeasible" (first cite 1533). About "infeasible" it says
"now rare" -- though that dictionary was published in 1933, maybe it's
staged a comeback since.
"Nonfeasible" doesn't score a mention, though "nonfeasance" does (first
cite 1596).
John.
Adam Funk
> I don't know. My old Shorter Oxford lists both "unfeasible" (first cite
> 1527) ) and "infeasible" (first cite 1533). About "infeasible" it says
> "now rare" -- though that dictionary was published in 1933, maybe it's
> staged a comeback since.
>
> "Nonfeasible" doesn't score a mention, though "nonfeasance" does (first
> cite 1596).
I've come across "malfeasance" but not "malfeasible". ;-)
--
Take it? I can't even parse it! [Kibo]
PaulJK
Yes, you've come up with a very good characterization of the word.
My CED says its "a less common word for impracticable".
It also includes infeasibility and infeasibleness.
pjk
PaulJK
>>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >> Is the word [infeasible] rarely used, or else why is it not
> >> listed in so many dictionaries?
>
> Peter> If it's in the dictionary, it's because the prefix "in-" is
> Peter> productive. There's no particular reason to use the word in
> Peter> preference to "not feasible,"
>
> Do dictionaries have "impossible"?
>
>
> Peter> but you can coin it anew if you need it for euphony (or
> Peter> prosody).
>
> Coin it, e.g., as "unfeasible"? "non-feasible"?
>
>
> And don't forget traps like "invaluable" and "inflammable". (I've met
> native speakers who tried to (mis-)'educate' me that the former is an
> antonym of "valuable"!!!!!!!!!
Well, it is a kind of antonym :-)
but antonym of only one of several meanings of "valuable",
namely "able to be valued".
Something is invaluable if you cannot assign a value to it.
You cannot assign a value to something if it's priceless.
And, yes, "priceless" and "worthless" are some other pitfalls. :-)
pjk
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> >>>>> "Joe" == Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> Joe> Roughly speaking, "in-" goes with Latin-derived words, and
> Joe> "un-", being native, is more widely applicable; but that is too
> Joe> rough to be useful. "Non-" is the most widely applicable and
> Joe> the most neutral (suggesting mere negation or exclusion rather
> Joe> than oppositeness, reversal, or the like), but it is often
> Joe> unidiomatic because an in- or un- word exists & is established.
> Joe> -- --- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
>
> Both "in-" and "non-" can go with "flammable", but result in opposite
> meanings!
That's a different morpheme {in}, and because it came to be confused
with the negative {in}, the insurance industry recommended that safety
labels use "flammable" instead of "inflammable."
I think this was one of Benjamin Lee Whorf's early observations that
got him to thinking about such things. (He was in insurance, and not a
professional linguist.)
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >> Is the word [infeasible] rarely used, or else why is it not
> >> listed in so many dictionaries?
>
> Peter> If it's in the dictionary, it's because the prefix "in-" is
Naturally that should have been "if it's not in the dictionary."
> Peter> productive. There's no particular reason to use the word in
> Peter> preference to "not feasible,"
>
> Do dictionaries have "impossible"?
Do you imagine that the meaning of "impossible" is fully predictable
from the meanings of "in" and "possible"? If you'd read the front
matter of a dictionary, you'd learn the principles governing inclusion
and exclusion from the list of lemmata.
For instance, would you understand someone who said "You were being
impossible in that other thread this past week!"?
> Peter> but you can coin it anew if you need it for euphony (or
> Peter> prosody).
>
> Coin it, e.g., as "unfeasible"? "non-feasible"?
Either of those is fine as well.
> And don't forget traps like "invaluable" and "inflammable". (I've met
> native speakers who tried to (mis-)'educate' me that the former is an
> antonym of "valuable"!!!!!!!!! I had to tell them to check in a
> dictionary themselves -- an L2 speaker teaching a native speaker a
> non-foreign word!)
Do you think that's an unusual situation?
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>
> > I looked up the word 'infeasible' in the following dictionaries but
> > failed to find it:
>
> > The concise oxford dictionary of current English, 1964.
>
> > Dictionary of contemporary English, Langenscheidt-Longman, 1978.
>
>
> > Collins compact Engslish learner's dictionary, 2004.
>
> > Collins concise dictionary, 1999.
>
> > The new international Webster's comprehensive dictionary, encyclopedic
> > edition, 2003.
>
> > On the other hand, Merriam-Webster's collegiate thesaurus, 1993, has
> > that word.
>
> > Is the word rarely used, or else why is it not listed in so many
> > dictionaries?
>
> I don't know. My old Shorter Oxford lists both "unfeasible" (first cite
> 1527) ) and "infeasible" (first cite 1533). About "infeasible" it says
> "now rare" -- though that dictionary was published in 1933, maybe it's
> staged a comeback since.
>
> "Nonfeasible" doesn't score a mention, though "nonfeasance" does (first
> cite 1596).
>
> John.
Sounds like this might be the place to bring up another elusive word:
"confound" (noun), meaning something like "(source of) confusion,
something that can be confused with something else". A student used it
several times in an essay, and when challenged said that it was a
common term in psychology. He seems to be right -- Google "a possible
confound" for plenty of examples. But I have yet to find it in a
dictionary. I assume it's initial-stressed, following the usual
pattern of verb-noun derivation with such words. But this pattern is
nowhere near as productive as the negative prefixes. Anybody else
familiar with this word? Maybe it's just very recent and the
dictionaries haven't picked it up yet.
Ross Clark
Joachim Pense
>>>>>> "Joachim" == Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> writes:
>
> >> Is the word ["infeasible"] rarely used, or else why is it not
> >> listed in so many dictionaries?
>
> Joachim> I see the word fairly often in computer science contexts,
> Joachim> describing a task that could be done with a given toolset,
> Joachim> but only with unappropriate effort.
> ...........................^^
>
> :)
>
>
Maybe the word is in fact "unfeasible" and not "infeasible"? I am not sure
anymore.
Joachim
Joachim Pense
>>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> Joe> Roughly speaking, "in-" goes with Latin-derived words, and
> Joe> "un-", being native, is more widely applicable; but that is too
> Joe> rough to be useful. "Non-" is the most widely applicable and
> Joe> the most neutral (suggesting mere negation or exclusion rather
> Joe> than oppositeness, reversal, or the like), but it is often
> Joe> unidiomatic because an in- or un- word exists & is established.
> Joe> -- --- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
>
> Both "in-" and "non-" can go with "flammable", but result in opposite
> meanings!
>
The story behind that is (And I don't know if it is a legend) that in the
early 20th century, there was only the word "inflammable", meaning
something that can burn, and in- not having privative but inchoactive
meaning from latin. There was no "flammable".
This lead to accidents due to misinterpretations of the in- as privative,
and Benjamin Lee Whorf, who worked for an insurance company, suggested to
use the newly coined word "flammable" on warning signs.
Joachim
LEE Sau Dan
Joachim> I see the word fairly often in computer science contexts,
Joachim> describing a task that could be done with a given toolset,
Joachim> but only with unappropriate effort.
>> ...........................^^
>>
>> :)
Joachim> Maybe the word is in fact "unfeasible" and not
Joachim> "infeasible"? I am not sure anymore.
I'm confident that one says "infeasible" and "inappropriate".
LEE Sau Dan
>> And don't forget traps like "invaluable" and "inflammable".
>> (I've met native speakers who tried to (mis-)'educate' me that
>> the former is an antonym of "valuable"!!!!!!!!!
PaulJK> Well, it is a kind of antonym :-) but antonym of only one of
PaulJK> several meanings of "valuable", namely "able to be valued".
But that guy told me that something "invaluable" is something worthless.
LEE Sau Dan
Peter> If it's not in the dictionary, it's because the prefix "in-"
Peter> is productive. There's no particular reason to use the word
Peter> in preference to "not feasible,"
>> Do dictionaries have "impossible"?
Peter> Do you imagine that the meaning of "impossible" is fully
Peter> predictable from the meanings of "in" and "possible"?
Yes.
Peter> If you'd read the front matter of a dictionary, you'd learn
Peter> the principles governing inclusion and exclusion from the
Peter> list of lemmata.
>> Coin it, e.g., as "unfeasible"? "non-feasible"?
Peter> Either of those is fine as well.
>> And don't forget traps like "invaluable" and
>> "inflammable". (I've met native speakers who tried to
>> (mis-)'educate' me that the former is an antonym of
>> "valuable"!!!!!!!!! I had to tell them to check in a
>> dictionary themselves -- an L2 speaker teaching a native
>> speaker a non-foreign word!)
Peter> Do you think that's an unusual situation?
I think that's non-usual. ;)
LEE Sau Dan
Joachim> The story behind that is (And I don't know if it is a
Joachim> legend) that in the early 20th century, there was only the
Joachim> word "inflammable", meaning something that can burn, and
Joachim> in- not having privative but inchoactive meaning from
Joachim> latin. There was no "flammable".
What was its antonym at that time?
Joachim> This lead to accidents due to misinterpretations of the in-
Joachim> as privative, and Benjamin Lee Whorf, who worked for an
Joachim> insurance company, suggested to use the newly coined word
Joachim> "flammable" on warning signs.
Why not simply say "burnable"?
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> >>>>> "Joachim" == Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> writes:
>
> Joachim> The story behind that is (And I don't know if it is a
> Joachim> legend) that in the early 20th century, there was only the
> Joachim> word "inflammable", meaning something that can burn, and
> Joachim> in- not having privative but inchoactive meaning from
> Joachim> latin. There was no "flammable".
>
> What was its antonym at that time?
>
> Joachim> This lead to accidents due to misinterpretations of the in-
> Joachim> as privative, and Benjamin Lee Whorf, who worked for an
> Joachim> insurance company, suggested to use the newly coined word
> Joachim> "flammable" on warning signs.
>
> Why not simply say "burnable"?
It doesn't mean remotely the same thing. Flammability is a property of
materials. Burnability is an attitude toward objects.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >> And don't forget traps like "invaluable" and "inflammable".
> >> (I've met native speakers who tried to (mis-)'educate' me that
> >> the former is an antonym of "valuable"!!!!!!!!!
>
> PaulJK> Well, it is a kind of antonym :-) but antonym of only one of
> PaulJK> several meanings of "valuable", namely "able to be valued".
>
> But that guy told me that something "invaluable" is something worthless.
Priceless, in fact -- rather than worthless.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> Peter> If it's not in the dictionary, it's because the prefix "in-"
> Peter> is productive. There's no particular reason to use the word
> Peter> in preference to "not feasible,"
>
> >> Do dictionaries have "impossible"?
>
> Peter> Do you imagine that the meaning of "impossible" is fully
> Peter> predictable from the meanings of "in" and "possible"?
>
> Yes.
Why did you omit my example demonstrating that it isn't? -- I'll give
another version: "You are being impossible in this thread."
Joachim Pense
>>>>>> "Joachim" == Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> writes:
>
> Joachim> The story behind that is (And I don't know if it is a
> Joachim> legend) that in the early 20th century, there was only the
> Joachim> word "inflammable", meaning something that can burn, and
> Joachim> in- not having privative but inchoactive meaning from
> Joachim> latin. There was no "flammable".
>
> What was its antonym at that time?
>
Don't now, perhaps uninflammable.
Joachim
LEE Sau Dan
>> >> And don't forget traps like "invaluable" and
>> >> "inflammable". (I've met native speakers who tried to
>> >> (mis-)'educate' me that the former is an antonym of
>> >> "valuable"!!!!!!!!!
PaulJK> Well, it is a kind of antonym :-) but antonym of only one of
PaulJK> several meanings of "valuable", namely "able to be valued".
>> But that guy told me that something "invaluable" is something
>> worthless.
Peter> Priceless, in fact -- rather than worthless.
That's what I (a non-native speaker) told that guy (a native speaker)!
António Marques
>>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Fineman<jo...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> Joe> Roughly speaking, "in-" goes with Latin-derived words, and
> Joe> "un-", being native, is more widely applicable; but that is too
> Joe> rough to be useful. "Non-" is the most widely applicable and
> Joe> the most neutral (suggesting mere negation or exclusion rather
> Joe> than oppositeness, reversal, or the like), but it is often
> Joe> -- --- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
>
> Both "in-" and "non-" can go with "flammable", but result in opposite
> meanings!
Not the same in- (this one is cognate with 'in-', the other one with 'un-').
Christian Weisgerber
> PaulJK> Well, it is a kind of antonym :-) but antonym of only one of
> PaulJK> several meanings of "valuable", namely "able to be valued".
>
> But that guy told me that something "invaluable" is something worthless.
Wasn't there a joke in the movie _ï¿œThree Amigos!_ about a
misunderstanding of the term "infamous"?
Oliver Cromm
> I've met
> native speakers who tried to (mis-)'educate' me that the former is an
> antonym of "valuable"!!!!!!!!! I had to tell them to check in a
> dictionary themselves -- an L2 speaker teaching a native speaker a
> non-foreign word!
In the German sense, it is a "foreign word", since it's not Germanic.
I recently tried to convince two native speakers of English that "rein
in my parade" doesn't contain "another meaning of 'rain'", but, being a
double minority, I was out of luck.
You shouldn't be so surprised, because being a native speaker doesn't
automatically include high language skill or general linguistic
keenness.
--
er (Tristan) hiez im ein t�renkleit
an der stete machen:
von wunderl�chen sachen
einen roc selts�n getan
und eine gugelen daran
H. V. FREIBERG Tristan
Harlan Messinger
>>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> Joe> Roughly speaking, "in-" goes with Latin-derived words, and
> Joe> "un-", being native, is more widely applicable; but that is too
> Joe> rough to be useful. "Non-" is the most widely applicable and
> Joe> the most neutral (suggesting mere negation or exclusion rather
> Joe> than oppositeness, reversal, or the like), but it is often
> Joe> unidiomatic because an in- or un- word exists & is established.
> Joe> -- --- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
>
> Both "in-" and "non-" can go with "flammable", but result in opposite
> meanings!
That isn't negative "in-". Conceptually speaking, "inflammable" isn't
"in-" + "flammable", it's "inflame" + "-able".
Peter T. Daniels
> * LEE Sau Dan <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>
> > I've met
> > native speakers who tried to (mis-)'educate' me that the former is an
> > antonym of "valuable"!!!!!!!!! I had to tell them to check in a
> > dictionary themselves -- an L2 speaker teaching a native speaker a
> > non-foreign word!
>
> In the German sense, it is a "foreign word", since it's not Germanic.
>
> I recently tried to convince two native speakers of English that "rein
> in my parade" doesn't contain "another meaning of 'rain'", but, being a
> double minority, I was out of luck.
"Mondegreen"!
It's not "rein in my parade," but "(don't) rain on my parade," i.e.
don't spoil my good mood.
Horace LaBadie
na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
> LEE Sau Dan <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>
> > PaulJK> Well, it is a kind of antonym :-) but antonym of only one of
> > PaulJK> several meanings of "valuable", namely "able to be valued".
> >
> > But that guy told me that something "invaluable" is something worthless.
>
> Wasn't there a joke in the movie _�Three Amigos!_ about a
> misunderstanding of the term "infamous"?
The Infamous El Guapo. "He's not just famous. He's INfamous!"
Oliver Cromm
> On Nov 9, 1:31�pm, Oliver Cromm <lispamat...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>> I recently tried to convince two native speakers of English that "rein
>> in my parade" doesn't contain "another meaning of 'rain'", but, being a
>> double minority, I was out of luck.
>
> "Mondegreen"!
>
> It's not "rein in my parade," but "(don't) rain on my parade," i.e.
> don't spoil my good mood.
Oops, so I remembered it the wrong way round. Could've checked that
before posting here (I obviously have to work on my pop-culture if ever
I want to be a Millionaire).
We were all wrong then, because it's the normal meaning of "rain".
Bother.
--
Spell checker (n.) One who gives examinations on witchcraft.
Herman Rubin in sci.lang
Joe Fineman
mostly goes with Greek-derived words (atheist, amorphous), but
sometimes gets stuck onto Latin-derived ones (asexual, amoral). That,
however, is a comparatively minor pest.
||: Excellence can be overdone. :||
PaulJK
>>>>>> "PaulJK" == PaulJK <paul....@paradise.net.nz> writes:
>
> >> And don't forget traps like "invaluable" and "inflammable".
> >> (I've met native speakers who tried to (mis-)'educate' me that
> >> the former is an antonym of "valuable"!!!!!!!!!
>
> PaulJK> Well, it is a kind of antonym :-) but antonym of only one of
> PaulJK> several meanings of "valuable", namely "able to be valued".
>
> But that guy told me that something "invaluable" is something worthless.
Oh, okay. He was wrong, of course.
In your earlier note you said he said it was an antonym of "valuable".
That note was ambiguous, it depended on which one of the
three meanings of "valuable" it was meant to be an antonym of.
Now it's clear to me what you meant.
pjk
PaulJK
>>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >> >> And don't forget traps like "invaluable" and
> >> >> "inflammable". (I've met native speakers who tried to
> >> >> (mis-)'educate' me that the former is an antonym of
> >> >> "valuable"!!!!!!!!!
>
> PaulJK> Well, it is a kind of antonym :-) but antonym of only one of
> PaulJK> several meanings of "valuable", namely "able to be valued".
>
> >> But that guy told me that something "invaluable" is something
> >> worthless.
>
> Peter> Priceless, in fact -- rather than worthless.
>
> That's what I (a non-native speaker) told that guy (a native speaker)!
I hope it was some help to him. A native speaker who doesn't
know the correct meaning of "invaluable" is also likely to be
confused about the meanings of "priceless" and "worthless".
:-)
pjk
LEE Sau Dan
>> But that guy told me that something "invaluable" is something
>> worthless.
That's why he told me I used the wrong word, and told me to use
"valuable" instead! I used it in "an invaluable experience".
PaulJK> Oh, okay. He was wrong, of course.
PaulJK> In your earlier note you said he said it was an antonym of
PaulJK> "valuable". That note was ambiguous, it depended on which
PaulJK> one of the three meanings of "valuable" it was meant to be
PaulJK> an antonym of.
Would you call something "valuable" when it costs only $0.01? Remeber,
it can be valued (i.e. given a price)!
PaulJK> Now it's clear to me what you meant. pjk
LEE Sau Dan
>> It's not "rein in my parade," but "(don't) rain on my parade,"
>> i.e. don't spoil my good mood.
Oliver> Oops, so I remembered it the wrong way round. Could've
................................................................^^
Oliver> checked that before posting here (I obviously have to work
Oliver> on my pop-culture if ever I want to be a Millionaire).
I'm glad that you wrote "could've" instead of "could of". Many native
speakers nowadays write the letter, and even defend that this is
grammatically correct usage: "could of" + past participle.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> >>>>> "PaulJK" == PaulJK <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> writes:
>
> >> But that guy told me that something "invaluable" is something
> >> worthless.
>
> That's why he told me I used the wrong word, and told me to use
> "valuable" instead! I used it in "an invaluable experience".
>
> PaulJK> Oh, okay. He was wrong, of course.
>
> PaulJK> In your earlier note you said he said it was an antonym of
> PaulJK> "valuable". That note was ambiguous, it depended on which
> PaulJK> one of the three meanings of "valuable" it was meant to be
> PaulJK> an antonym of.
>
> Would you call something "valuable" when it costs only $0.01? Remeber,
> it can be valued (i.e. given a price)!
Certainly. If your 3-year-old grandchild gives you a gift with no
monetary value, it is precious to you. "Valuable" would be a fairly
cheap way to communicate that.
(I've been trying to remember of whom Oscar Wilde said that they knew
the price of everything and the value of nothing.)
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> >>>>> "Oliver" == Oliver Cromm <lispamat...@yahoo.de> writes:
>
> >> It's not "rein in my parade," but "(don't) rain on my parade,"
> >> i.e. don't spoil my good mood.
>
> Oliver> Oops, so I remembered it the wrong way round. Could've
> ................................................................^^
> Oliver> checked that before posting here (I obviously have to work
> Oliver> on my pop-culture if ever I want to be a Millionaire).
>
> I'm glad that you wrote "could've" instead of "could of". Many native
> speakers nowadays write the letter, and even defend that this is
> grammatically correct usage: "could of" + past participle.
This was discussed here not so long ago.
What is your evidence that (synchronically) this /@v/ relates to
either "have" or "of"?
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> >>>>> "PaulJK" == PaulJK <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> writes:
>
> >> And don't forget traps like "invaluable" and "inflammable".
> >> (I've met native speakers who tried to (mis-)'educate' me that
> >> the former is an antonym of "valuable"!!!!!!!!!
>
> PaulJK> Well, it is a kind of antonym :-) but antonym of only one of
> PaulJK> several meanings of "valuable", namely "able to be valued".
>
> But that guy told me that something "invaluable" is something worthless.
Invaluable means "that which cannot be valued" - so precious that its
value cannot be determined.
Valueless means worthless.
Christian Weisgerber
> > Wasn't there a joke in the movie _�Three Amigos!_ about a
> > misunderstanding of the term "infamous"?
>
> The Infamous El Guapo. "He's not just famous. He's INfamous!"
Is "in-" ever an intensifier in English?
But "infamous" is an interesting case anyway. Even though we are
looking at a negation, it isn't a straightforward antonym to "famous".
Etymonline.com says:
c.1378, from M.L. infamosus, from L. in- "not" + famosus "celebrated."
Meaning infl. by L. infamis "of ill fame," from in- "not, without"
+ fama "reputation."
In German, "un-" can serve both as a negation and an intensifier,
which causes the occasional ambiguity, e.g.
"Untiefe":
(1) a shallow
(2) a great depth
Nathan Sanders
na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
> Horace LaBadie <hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote:
>
> > > Wasn't there a joke in the movie _�Three Amigos!_ about a
> > > misunderstanding of the term "infamous"?
> >
> > The Infamous El Guapo. "He's not just famous. He's INfamous!"
>
> Is "in-" ever an intensifier in English?
How about in "intense"? :-)
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
Horace LaBadie
<0ae1d421-9871-4a50...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
Lay Windermere's Fan, Act Three.
LORD DARLINGTON. What cynics you fellows are!
CECIL GRAHAM. What is a cynic?
LORD DARLINGTON. A man who knows the price of everything and the
value of nothing.
alan
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote
(I've been trying to remember of whom Oscar Wilde said that they knew
the price of everything and the value of nothing.)
Said by Lord Henry to Dorian Gray of people in general:
"So sorry I am late, Dorian. I went to look after a piece of old brocade in
Wardour Street and had to bargain for hours for it. Nowadays people know the
price of everything and the value of nothing."
--- The Picture of Dorian Gray, Chapter 4
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote
"I wish I'd said that." "You will, Oscar, you will."
(Said of either Oscar Wilde or Oscar Levant.)
So the question is, did he broaden it from cynics to people, or narrow
it from people to cynics?
Horace LaBadie
<75c1e3c7-e973-4bce...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2:16�pm, "alan" <in flagra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote
> >
> > (I've been trying to remember of whom Oscar Wilde said that they knew
> > the price of everything and the value of nothing.)
> >
> > Said by Lord Henry to Dorian Gray of people in general:
> >
> > "So sorry I am late, Dorian. I went to look after a piece of old brocade in
> > Wardour Street and had to bargain for hours for it. Nowadays people know the
> > price of everything and the value of nothing."
> >
> > --- The Picture of Dorian Gray, Chapter 4
>
> "I wish I'd said that." "You will, Oscar, you will."
>
> (Said of either Oscar Wilde or Oscar Levant.)
Jamie Whistler to Wilde.
> So the question is, did he broaden it from cynics to people, or narrow
> it from people to cynics?
Dorian Gray was published in Lippincott's Monthly Magazine in June,
1890. Lady Windermere was staged in February, 1892.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> In article
> <75c1e3c7-e973-4bce-8564-550cc3c9f...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
So still no hint of which came first!
Horace LaBadie
<ab953232-54e4-4f94...@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
Lady Windermere was written after Dorian Gray, so that is a hint.
Brian M. Scott
<mok-ko...@t-online.de> wrote in
<news:hd78gs$pe7$02$1...@news.t-online.com> in sci.lang:
> I looked up the word 'infeasible' in the following
> dictionaries but failed to find it:
[...]
> Is the word rarely used, or else why is it not listed in
> so many dictionaries?
Good question. I've used it for years and have never
thought of it as particularly rare, perhaps because it's
fairly commonly used in some areas of mathematics.
Brian
PaulJK
>>>>>> "PaulJK" == PaulJK <paul....@paradise.net.nz> writes:
>
> >> But that guy told me that something "invaluable" is something
> >> worthless.
>
> That's why he told me I used the wrong word, and told me to use
> "valuable" instead! I used it in "an invaluable experience".
>
>
> PaulJK> Oh, okay. He was wrong, of course.
>
> PaulJK> In your earlier note you said he said it was an antonym of
> PaulJK> "valuable". That note was ambiguous, it depended on which
> PaulJK> one of the three meanings of "valuable" it was meant to be
> PaulJK> an antonym of.
>
> Would you call something "valuable" when it costs only $0.01? Remeber,
> it can be valued (i.e. given a price)!
Well, darn it, hand on my heart, in spoken conversation, I probably
wouldn't. I would use it only in the context of discussing the ability
to value items while making extra sure that that particular meaning
of the word is understood by the listener. (E.g. That item is valuable
at one cent.)
To avoid possible misunderstanding I would probably phrase
it differently, e.g. That item can be valued at one cent.
pjk
PaulJK
> In article <hdc34g$16th$1...@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>,
> na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>
>> Horace LaBadie <hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Wasn't there a joke in the movie _�Three Amigos!_ about a
>>>> misunderstanding of the term "infamous"?
>>>
>>> The Infamous El Guapo. "He's not just famous. He's INfamous!"
>>
>> Is "in-" ever an intensifier in English?
>
> How about in "intense"? :-)
>
> Nathan
inheritable? (this might qualify)
incite?? (clutching the straws :-))
pjk
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> In article
> <ab953232-54e4-4f94-be4a-b251ce6be...@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Where are his mss. preserved? Are his drafts and sketches dated? How
do you know which was written first? (I've never heard of a Wilde
Archive, or an edition of his Nachlass, or anything like that.)
Horace LaBadie
<efa15cb3-9585-4422...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
According to a letter to George Alexander, the actor/producer, Wilde was
working on Windermere in February, 1891. The publishing history of
Dorian Gray is clear. Wilde and Conan Doyle had dinner with Stoddart of
Lippincott's, and Dorian Gray and Sign of the Four were commissioned in
1889. In Spetember, 1889 WIlde wrote to Stoddart to say that the
manuscript could not be delivered before November.
Most of Wilde's manuscripts/typescripts were sold at his bankruptcy. The
New York Public Library owns the typescript of Ernest. I think some
others are owned by the Barnes foundation.
Peter T. Daniels
<hwlabadi...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote:
> In article
> <efa15cb3-9585-4422-9e41-0fa6c8c8d...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
So you know for certain that he didn't keep a Commonplace Book in
which he wrote down his quips, to be polished and brought out as
necessary, to be used and reused as appropriate? Perhaps the printed
version had already been being passed around orally, and his audiences
expected to hear it in his next stage work, a la TV-character catch
phrases? Is there anything about the characters or plot of Fan that
would suggest honing it to point to "cynics"?
Was Dorian Gray published whole in a single magazine issue, or was it
serialized? (Would have been a rather large magazine issue.)
LEE Sau Dan
>> I looked up the word 'infeasible' in the following dictionaries
>> but failed to find it:
Brian> [...]
>> Is the word rarely used, or else why is it not listed in so many
>> dictionaries?
Brian> Good question. I've used it for years and have never thought
Brian> of it as particularly rare, perhaps because it's fairly
Brian> commonly used in some areas of mathematics.
Just like "orthogonal", which is a strange word (meaning "perpendicular"
in some specific scopes) to the laymen!
Horace LaBadie
<1e2362ce-d3c6-42cb...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
A lot of Wilde's conversation found its way into his written works. Some
of his fairy tales were simply extempore performances for his sons that
he later published. Except as letters, he doesn't seem to have written
down any of his witticisms until sitting down to compose a story or play.
> Was Dorian Gray published whole in a single magazine issue, or was it
> serialized? (Would have been a rather large magazine issue.)
Dorian Gray was a single, long story, about 100 pages in the June
magazine. (He put the length at 30,000 words in a letter to Stoddart.)
Wilde added material to fill it out for book publication.
Christian Weisgerber
> >>> The Infamous El Guapo. "He's not just famous. He's INfamous!"
> >>
> >> Is "in-" ever an intensifier in English?
> >
> > How about in "intense"? :-)
>
> inheritable? (this might qualify)
> incite?? (clutching the straws :-))
Etymologically at least these are all "into, in".
PaulJK
> PaulJK <paul....@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>>>> The Infamous El Guapo. "He's not just famous. He's INfamous!"
>>>>
>>>> Is "in-" ever an intensifier in English?
>>>
>>> How about in "intense"? :-)
>>
>> inheritable? (this might qualify)
>> incite?? (clutching the straws :-))
>
> Etymologically at least these are all "into, in".
Hmm. True.
pjk