tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post1627031011929757825..comments2024-03-28T02:54:46.537-04:00Comments on The TOF Spot: On the UnprefixableTheOFloinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-52798777469814381522009-12-31T19:03:32.868-05:002009-12-31T19:03:32.868-05:00Got another one -- we have deduce, reduce, induce,...Got another one -- we have deduce, reduce, induce, conduce, educe, adduce, abduce; but while we do use the noun form 'duct' (and the related noun form 'duke'), we never talk about ducing.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-3077371086909759152009-12-31T12:07:14.145-05:002009-12-31T12:07:14.145-05:00With redeem, the 'd' actually went with th...With redeem, the 'd' actually went with the 're' for reasons of sound (re(d)-emere). Pre-emption (and the back-formation, to pre-empt) is in the same family. There is a rare word, 'emption', which means the act of purchasing or something purchased. But no verb,'to (d)eem' or 'to empt', alas. And post-emption seems to be missing.<br /><br />Retail, entail (in the legal sense), and detail are all related, but we don't use the common root (which originally meant to cut or shape into small bits).Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-68040533799282722832009-12-27T22:02:41.693-05:002009-12-27T22:02:41.693-05:00Good question. I don't know the answer. Anal...Good question. I don't know the answer. Analogous reasoning is not in fashion these days. Try saying that A:B::C:D and you will be accused of saying that B is the same thing as D. Some years back, the College Boards dropped the analogy questions from their exams, largely because one segment - women - scored significantly below men. I suppose that was easier than teaching analogous reasoning.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-7661176961003973092009-12-27T03:25:14.114-05:002009-12-27T03:25:14.114-05:00Can we use this wordplay as a source of analogies?...Can we use this wordplay as a source of analogies? The analogy submission:subversion::permission:perversion sounds valid but can it be continued to intermission:interversion?Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04720409839023747889noreply@blogger.com