The Unwords of Unworld

The world of un- is a Mudville, a burg chock-full of the has-been and the never-was. [D.R.H.]


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.etymonline.com/columns/post/the-unwords-of-unworld

Not having access to your revered volume of the OED I am unable(!) to look up the entry for ā€˜unionizeā€™.
I like to think that if a workforce were to unionize, then disaffiliate, they would ununionize.

ununiversal, etc.; formally fitting but etymologically un- + uni-, which belongs elsewhere.

Sorry but the temptation is too strong to resist: is a ununicorn just a plain horse? :slightly_smiling_face:

it would be ununique. But an onionicorn would be a horse of another.

1 Like

somehow, some miserable way, I just knew everyone would fall down the sidetrack rabbit hole under the aside about un-un-.

As an ESL teacher, I find this text fascinating as it explores one of the most challenging aspects of English for language learners: the prefix ā€œun-ā€ and its complex usage patterns. Here are some key teaching observations:

  1. Teaching Challenges:
  • Students often oversimplify ā€œun-ā€ as just meaning ā€œnotā€ or ā€œopposite of,ā€ but this text beautifully illustrates how much more complex it is
  • The dual nature of ā€œun-ā€ (reversing actions vs. describing impossibility) is particularly tricky for learners to grasp
  • Many students try to create their own ā€œun-ā€ words incorrectly, not realizing that not all words can take this prefix
  1. Interesting Teaching Points:
  • The text provides excellent examples of confusing pairs like ā€œunstoppableā€ vs. ā€œunstoppedā€ that often trip up learners
  • The historical examples (like ā€œunprayingā€ and ā€œunsaintedā€) help explain why some seemingly illogical ā€œun-ā€ words exist in modern English
  • The subtle distinction between ā€œsadā€ and ā€œungladā€ is perfect for advanced learners studying nuance in English
  1. Classroom Applications:
  • The textā€™s playful examples like ā€œunfatā€ could make for engaging exercises where students discuss which ā€œun-ā€ constructions work and which donā€™t
  • The discussion of double negatives (like ā€œunlooseā€) could help address common learner mistakes
  • The historical perspective could help students understand why English sometimes seems inconsistent
  1. Common Student Mistakes This Addresses:
  • Trying to add ā€œun-ā€ to every adjective (*unrich instead of poor)
  • Confusing similar-looking ā€œun-ā€ words with different meanings
  • Not recognizing words like ā€œuncleā€ where ā€œun-ā€ isnā€™t actually a prefix
1 Like

The entire discussion is unconceivable.

1 Like

The negating sense and etymology is primary, the reversal sense is of a different etymology, which complicates matters; and that primary sense comes, no doubt, from ā€œneā€, as in Russian, where ā€œneā€ can attach to everything without any of the aforementioned difficulties: to nouns, verbs, adverbs, even prepositions, as in ne-do.

The second sense, of reversal, adds to the plethora of English homonyms - the very trait that forced me to explore the languageā€™s etymologies and fall in love with your beautiful dictionary.

unwords always make me think about history boys, when Hector is teaching about the " Drummer Hodge" poem and says:

ā€œUncoffinedā€ is a Hardy usage.

Itā€™s a compound adjective,

formed by putting ā€œunā€ in front of the noun.

Or verb, of course.

Unkissed,

unrejoicing,

unconfessed,

unembraced.

Itā€™s a turn of phrase

that brings with it

a sense of not sharing.

Of being out of it"

that always stuck with me

1 Like

We use to regard affirmation and negation just as the two sides of the same coin (which is formally correct) but often overlook the fact that the ā€˜noā€™ side seems to be considerably heavier.
Few languages resist the temptation of doubling the size of their dictionaries by adopting a swarm of negative prefixes (such as de-, dis-, il-, im-, in-, ir-, mis-, non-, un-, and possibly more), whereas as positive prefixes all we have is a measly over- (with its close relatives uber-, hyper-, super- that seldom sound very natural).

I suspect that this oddity is related to something hardwired in our brain, something that we accept unquestioningly as a matter of course.
Toddlers learn ā€˜noā€™ much earlier then ā€˜yesā€™: you offer them spinach and get a resolute NO!, you offer them a candy bar and they just grab it. You drag them to the bathroom for a long overdue wash ignoring a flurry of no! no! no!, you drive them to the beach for a splash in the water and all you get is a volley of delighted giggles (I often wondered whether itā€™s the soap that makes the difference or rather the contrast between duty and freedom :slightly_smiling_face:).
Whereas ā€˜yesā€™ comes much later just as a sort of hypocritical concession to diplomacy.

Perhaps we should be thankful to this odd unbalance, else our paper dictionaries would be twice as thick :smile:

A bit untoward this topic, I am reminded of my first stumbling over ā€œantidisestablishmentarianismā€ in the history of Virginia and Thomas Jeffersonā€™s role therein as an undoer who sought his work not to be undone.

ā€˜Untold damageā€™ always got me when I was a child. "What is it ? " , I thought.

The difference between un- and -less in uncaring , careless, might be a good way to teach the difference to people learning the nuances of English

the fine distinction of un- or dis- from non- also is helpful. Unaligned/non-aligned. non-appearance/disappearance.

Havelock Ellis had an undying love for Undines, which, if heard after dinner, would force me to ā€˜undineā€™.

1 Like