[email protected]

In a message dated 3/1/2005 7:59:19 AM Mountain Standard Time,
Diamondlady1025@... writes:

Unlimitless Possibilities

==========

Hey, is this like "flammable" and "inflammable"?

Wouldn't unlimitless be the opposite of limitless?






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

wifetovegman2002

--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/1/2005 7:59:19 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> Diamondlady1025@d... writes:
>
> Unlimitless Possibilities
>
> ==========
>
> Hey, is this like "flammable" and "inflammable"?
>
> Wouldn't unlimitless be the opposite of limitless?
>
>


Yep, it should be either "unlimited" or "limitless".


~Susan McGlohn

Patti Diamondlady Diamond, SCHM

Let me see if I can place it in another context for everyone and amybe
this will help!:)

This word is a play on words, just like that of the play on words we
utilize when "labeling" children with things such as ADD, autism, etc.
Therefore this is the reasoning behind the word unlimitless.

If you read Chapter Twelve in my book on Labels, maybe this will clear
the confusion!:)

In Love and Light,

Patti Diamond and the boys (Life Long Learners Chris 13 1/2, Matthew
8, Anthony 7)
Life Long Learning Academy
JUST PUBLISHED!! "Life Long Learning ~ Transforming Learning -
Discovering Learning Through Living Life in Unlimitless Possibilities"
http://www.lifelonglearning4all.com
http://www.diamondlady.net


--- In [email protected], "wifetovegman2002"
<wifetovegman2002@y...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 3/1/2005 7:59:19 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> > Diamondlady1025@d... writes:
> >
> > Unlimitless Possibilities
> >
> > ==========
> >
> > Hey, is this like "flammable" and "inflammable"?
> >
> > Wouldn't unlimitless be the opposite of limitless?
> >
> >
>
>
> Yep, it should be either "unlimited" or "limitless".
>
>
> ~Susan McGlohn

[email protected]

In a message dated 3/2/05 9:23:34 PM, Diamondlady1025@... writes:

<< If you read Chapter Twelve in my book on Labels, maybe this will clear

the confusion!:) >>

There will be a few people who won't get to chapter twelve because they don't
want to read something "unlimitless."

The problem with making up words of operational parts is that the parts have
meanings, and "un" negates. So "unlimitless" (regardless of what it the
author hoped others would think it would mean) means limited.

Flammable and inflammable aren't errors, they're words that came from two
different uses (the verb "to inflame" and the prefix "flam-") in two different
contexts. When I was doing document preparation years ago for archeologists,
it bothered me that what normal humans call shards of pottery, they call
"sherds." It took me a while to enter that word right and not shudder. They're
related words, but not used by the same groups for the same purposes. (Shards
go in the trash, and sherds are numbered and put in drawers in museums, I
finally told myself to feel better about it.)

Some people are not as sensitive about language as others, not as careful,
not as excited about how wonderful it can be.

Sandra

Heidi

I wonder if this hearkens to the "potsherds" that Job scraped his
boils with, in the Bible, King James version?

blessings, HeidiC

When I was doing document preparation years ago for archeologists,
> it bothered me that what normal humans call shards of pottery, they
call
> "sherds." It took me a while to enter that word right and not
shudder. They're
> related words, but not used by the same groups for the same
purposes. (Shards
> go in the trash, and sherds are numbered and put in drawers in
museums, I
> finally told myself to feel better about it.)
>
> Some people are not as sensitive about language as others, not as
careful,
> not as excited about how wonderful it can be.
>
> Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 3/3/2005 10:29:00 AM Mountain Standard Time,
bunsofaluminum60@... writes:


I wonder if this hearkens to the "potsherds" that Job scraped his
boils with, in the Bible, King James version?



=========

Probably so!

English, in England, hundreds of years ago, was three different dialects,
and some words have remained from those days so that we have two versions of a
word that came from Germanic (probably) and both were retained. Then the
U.S. was populated with people from one linguistic English area in the south,
and a different one in the north, so the U.S. has vocabulary clashes sometimes
too (because England did). It's a joyous mess. <g>

Not an unlimitless mess, though.

Sandra


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]