So the New York Times has resorted to making up words?

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

[QUOTE=Indistinguishable]
Probably meant to say “hyphen”, too…
[/QUOTE]

Probably, but maybe it was my un-conscious mind.

[KneadToKnow]

[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
The man likes hymens. Can you blame them?
[/QUOTE]

I hate 'em. Every time I’ve had the opportunity, I’ve torn 'em down.

[Jackmannii]

The N.Y. Times has other irritating tendencies, including the stilted format of its sports pages*.

They have an unexplained aversion to writing like other papers, who might say in the course of a baseball story, “Third baseman David Wright caught a line drive”. The Times will say “The third baseman David Wright caught a line drive”, “The cornerback Pacman Jones” etc. (The Wall St. Journal tends to do this too).
*I suspect the Times is still vaguely embarassed at running sports stories at all due to their plebeian appeal, which is why on most days the sports section is hidden inside Business.

[Zoe]

long lost Visa: Once a word enters the language, all common prefixes, suffixes, plural forms, etc. are available for anyone to apply.

Unfortunately, the results can be disasterous!

Ravel and unravel have the same meaning

So do flammable and inflammable.

To denude something does not mean to dress it.

Disinterested is different from uninterested.

But there’s really no point in getting unlaxed about this…

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

[QUOTE=Zoe]
Unfortunately, the results can be disasterous!

So do flammable and inflammable.

[/QUOTE]

In English there are two ways the prefix “in” is used. One means not. The other means in, into, or within. From the American Heritage Dictionary:

@AHD

Usage Note: Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However, the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming that inflammable means “not flammable” or “noncombustible.” The prefix -in in inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix -in, which is related to the English -un and appears in such words as indecent and inglorious. Rather, this -in is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity’s sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

[QUOTE=Zoe]

To denude something does not mean to dress it.

[/QUOTE]

This one I have a link for:

@encyclopedia.com

3. down to the bottom or dregs, (hence) completely, thoroughly, as in L. dēcoquere (see DECOCTION); sometimes merely strengthening vbs., as in DECLARE, DENUDE;

De- | Encyclopedia.com

[eleanorigby]

I hope this is taken in the way it is intended–if you want to write a letter of complaint about this urgent and critical matter, may I suggest asking Frylock to pen the email for you? (just kidding ya, Fry!)

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

[QUOTE=Zoe]
Unfortunately, the results can be disasterous!

Ravel and unravel have the same meaning

[/QUOTE]

A nice little article from Random House:

Penguin Random House

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

[QUOTE=Zoe]

Disinterested is different from uninterested.

[/QUOTE]

That is because “un” in uninterested is used to mean not, and “dis” in “disinterested” is (or should be) used to mean free from.

But the AHD dictionary says it is more complicated:

@AHD

Usage Note: In traditional usage, disinterested can only mean “having no stake in an outcome,” as in Since the judge stands to profit from the sale of the company, she cannot be considered a disinterested party in the dispute. But despite critical disapproval, disinterested has come to be widely used by many educated writers to mean “uninterested” or “having lost interest,” as in Since she discovered skiing, she is disinterested in her schoolwork. Oddly enough, “not interested” is the oldest sense of the word, going back to the 17th century. This sense became outmoded in the 18th century but underwent a revival in the first quarter of the early 20th. Despite its resuscitation, this usage is widely considered an error. In a 1988 survey, 89 percent of the Usage Panel rejected the sentence His unwillingness to give five minutes of his time proves that he is disinterested in finding a solution to the problem. This is not a significantly different proportion from the 93 percent who disapproved of the same usage in 1980.

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=Indistinguishable]
On another note, the primary danger to “voluptuary”, judging from my own fallible intuitions, is that people rather prefer to use “voluptuous” instead.
[/QUOTE]
One may be a voluptuous voluptuary Mae West and Madonna come to mind), but it is unlikely that one would encounter a voluptuous religion. OTOH, there have, indeed, been several recorded instances of voluptuary religions.

I doubt that, (or, at least, hope that no) folks are using the words interchangeably.

[Zoe]

And that brings us to undisinterested and nondisentangled.

Funny Random House piece. He mentioned another word that interests me – unfurl. How seldom we speak of furling the flag.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

[QUOTE=KneadToKnow]
That’s not all you aren’t familiar with, fuckwit*: you need to learn how to use a dictionary. Dictionaries as a rule don’t bother to list un- formations of valid words unless there’s something peculiar about them. Lookup voluptary and you’ll see it’s a perfectly valid word, ready for combining with perfectly valid English affixes like un-.
*It’s the Pit, after all. Nothing personal.
[/QUOTE]

What they said. Voluptuary.

[E-Sabbath]

But we do furl sails. Quite often.

[42fish]

[QUOTE=Zoe]
Funny Random House piece. He mentioned another word that interests me – unfurl. How seldom we speak of furling the flag.
[/QUOTE]

There’s a fair number of words rarely used without a ‘not’ prefix. For example:

(In)advertant
(An)algesic
(In)clement
(Un)conscionable
(Dis)consolate
(In)corrigible
(In)delible
(Non)descript
(In)domitable
(In)effable
(In)evitable
(Un)kempt
(Il)licit
(Im)maculate
(In)nocuous
(Im)peccable
(Im)pervious
(Im)placable
(Un)ruly
(In)sipid
(In)vincible
(Un)wieldly

[RTFirefly]

The NYT says people who like to hang out in the nude call themselves “naturalists.”

It’s naturists. Not only is that what they call themselves, but ‘naturalists’ are something else entirely.

[eleanorigby]

I bet some naturalists are naturists and vice versa. But can you be a denatured naturist? Or an unnatural one? Heh.

[Hostile_Dialect]

@Zoe

How seldom we speak of furling the flag.

That’s because only terrorists and Democrats furl flags.

[Indistinguishable]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
One may be a voluptuous voluptuary Mae West and Madonna come to mind), but it is unlikely that one would encounter a voluptuous religion. OTOH, there have, indeed, been several recorded instances of voluptuary religions.

I doubt that, (or, at least, hope that no) folks are using the words interchangeably.
[/QUOTE]

But look at the second definition in your “voluptuous” link. How does that significantly differ from the definition in your “voluptuary” link?

[astro]

On a practical note a lot of the NYT staff is about to get fired. I would imagine they are probably somewhat distracted at present and might be letting some things get past they might normally have been more punctilious about.

[lissener]

Um, when did English become a dead language?