I thought of the word “smithereens” today, meaning “little pieces,” as in “The bomb blew him to smithereens.”
It’s a strange word: always plural, and always preceded by “to,” and always in relation to some horrific act. You’d never say “There’s a smithereen of paper on the floor.” (I’m tempted to start using it that way.)
What other really strange words/usages are there?
Ruthless. You never say (anymore) that somebody is ruthful or only has a little ruth.
Moose is slightly odd in that the singula, plural, and collective forms are exactly the same. One moose, two moose, a heard of moose.
I have the feeling that there’s another classic example that I should be able to think of at the moment, but it’s not coming to me. (sigh)
Ravel and Cleave can be their own antonyms.
Similarly, you’re either over- or under-whelmed, never just whelmed…
Um, Sheep or Fish?
Or deer…
And “inflammable” means the same as “flammable.”
Yes, I have heard of moose. I know you were trying to be couth, but I couldn’t help pointing it out.
Vlad/Igor
I had to check out the OP, and the online Mirriam Webster Distionary did, indeed, only have smithereens in the plural. Cool.
I’ve been collecting words that only exist in the negative, like ruthless, above.
My favorite is disgruntled. Gruntled just sounds like someone’s as happy as a pig in slop.
Actually, ‘fishes’ is also correct.
Oops. Meant ‘herd of moose’ I guess. (Goes to dictionary website to make sure he’s spelling ‘herd’ correctly, because it looks kinda weird.) And thanks for the other examples of animals like that.
I was meaning other common examples of odd word classes that I should have been able to think of. “Overwhelmed”, “inflammable/flammable”, and “disgruntled” are all good ones I’m familiar with and was probably trying to think of. (I think ‘underwhelmed’ is a fairly recent retroconstruction based on ‘overwhelmed’, but I’m not sure.)
Hey so it is, didn’t know that!
However ‘a school of fishes’ just doesn’t seem to scan for some reason…
Ahh… 10 Things I Hate About You Fan?
I think only fish swim together in a school – the same kind of fish. There are many kinds of fish – many fishes if you must.
“Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea…” – Three Dog Night
Maybe so, but if you say ‘Sleeping with the fishes’ you sound like a gangster. However, if you say ‘Sleeping with the fish’ you sound like Troy McClure.
Sorry, never seen it. I don’t know where i picked that example from, probably Bill Bryson’s Mother Tongue a few years back.
So does ‘fishes’ indicate many of a different kind of fish (singular)? And ‘fish’ (plural) indicate many of the **same **kind of fish (singular)?
You may remember me from such threads as…
If you’ll all hold fast for a second, I’ll try to come up with another curious word, fast!
See the Note on usage: “fish” vs. “fishes” on this page for a clarification. Notice usages of the two plural forms in your reading and listening and you’ll soon realize if the writers/speakers are using the terms correctly. I remember the first time I saw a copy of this book in a library, and thought that Zim was using a “fake” word. I soon learned that while we ate fish for dinner, there were many food fishes in the world.
Besides “smithereens”, another word with limited use is “shebang”. It seems I only ever hear about “the whole shebang”, never “half a shebang” or “just one part of the shebang”.
Although adjectives generally precede the nouns they modify (as in **green *grass and pretty girl) there are exceptions. Some of these deal with quantity (whiskey galore, Dudes Aplenty). Others are foreign forms of ordinary English adjectives – for example, a star outfielder can be either an extraordinary athlete or a ballplayer extraordinaire.
*fans of Conan O’Brien will recognize this reference to the spoof boy band the Late Night host created