Word

ISSN: 0043-7956 (Print) 2373-5112 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwrd20

Words that are their opposites: Noun to verb

conversion in English

R. A. Buck

To cite this article: R. A. Buck (1997) Words that are their opposites: Noun to verb conversion in
English, Word, 48:1, 1-14, DOI: 10.1080/00437956.1997.11432459

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1997.11432459

Published online: 15 May 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1045

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rwrd20
R.A.BUCK-------------------------------

Words that are their opposites: Noun to

verb conversion in English 1

Abstract. This article investigates the semantic properties of English

denominal locative verbs, exploring specifically their capability of ex-
pressing opposite meanings. Locative denominal verbs pattern themselves
systematically into distinct groups based on underlying syntactic behavior
as well as on the semantic property of affectedness on noun arguments. The
article argues that the properties of affectedness, agenthood, and the notion
of preexisting state constrain the possible semantics of these verbs and
shed some light on the way these verbs are organized in our mental lexicon
around denominals prefixed by the morphemes un- and de-.

1. Background. In English, we find a rather large group of verbs that

are formed from nouns with no change in form to the word. For
instance, the noun peifume can be converted into the verb to peifume
without undergoing visible change to the form of the word. To oil, to
paint, to powder, to sugar are other examples of verbs formed from
nouns? This morphological process is sometimes called conversion (of
one grammatical category to another), sometimes called functional shift
(shift in grammatical function), and the verbs are often called denomi-
nal verbs to indicate their nominal roots.
Denominal verbs in English have been categorized into different
semantic groups (Clark and Clark 1979). For instance, some carry the
meaning 'to go or move by vehicle' as in to truck the tomatoes; others
mean 'to make X into', as in to powder the aspirin. Clark and Clark
(1979) provide an extensive corpus totaling approximately 1300 of such
verbs in English. In this paper, I am concerned with only locative denom-
inal verbs, those verbs which express a locational relation of one noun to
another. To oil is one example of a locative denominal verb since it
expresses the movement and consequently locational relation of oil to
(on) another object (hinges, pan, and so forth). From Clark and Clark's
( 1979) corpus, approximately 550 of these are locatives and make up the
3
corpus for this paper.
Denominal locative verbs regroup themselves into subtypes as a
result of underlying syntactic differences (Marchand 1969; Clark and
Clark 1979). If we look at the surface forms of the denominallocative
2 WORD, VOLUME48, NUMBER 1 (APRIL, 1997)

verbs listed in Group A and Group B, we do not find much difference

between the two sub-classes of locatives.

Group A
to wax the car
to grease the pan
to powder her face
to spice the food
to paint the wall
to butter the bread
to label the jars
GroupB
to bottle the wine
to land the plane
to shelve the books
to skewer the meat
to lodge the guests
to bag the groceries
to dock the boat

But if we look at a simple paraphrase of each of these verbs that

expresses the relation of the parent noun to a more primitive verb put (a
verb which captures the underlying meaning of all the denominal verbs
in these two groups), we can observe some interesting differences be-
4
tween these two groups of locative denominals. Group A verbs incor-
porate the underlying direct object into the denominal verb while Group
B verbs incorporate the underlying noun which is in an oblique relation
to the verb (it is the object of the preposition):

Group A GroupB
to wax the car [to put wax to bottle the wine [to put wine in
on the car] the bottle]

Here I give only a representative sample of verbs that belong to each sub-
type with the understanding that other denominallocative verbs that con-
tain a put reading pattern themselves in such a fashion.
If we study the conceptual epistemology of these verbs as verbs of
motion in general, we notice another characteristic difference about the
relation of the verb in each group to its accompanying noun arguments.
In Group A verbs, it is the object that moves (I will refer to this as the
theme) that becomes the denominal verb: in to wax the car, for instance,
an active agent causes the wax (the theme) to go from a particular
unspecified point (the container?) to (on) the car, the specified station-
ary object location (I will refer to this as the place). In Group B verbs,
on the other hand, we notice that it is the underlying stationary place
object that becomes the denominal verb: in to bottle the wine, an active
agent causes the wine (the theme) to go from an unspecified point (the
vat?) to a specified stationary place location, the bottle.
In an article I wrote several years ago (Buck 1993), I explored the
question of whether there still remained a semantic distinction between
these subtypes that accompanied the underlying syntactic difference. I
 BUCK: NOUN TO VERB CONVERSION 3

argued that the differences in the surface incorporation of underlying

arguments in the subtypes are indeed systematic and can be explained
on semantic grounds. I explained this by looking at the notion of affect-
edness on these alternations.
In Group B verbs, if we ask the question of what has happened to
the theme object after the theme arrives at the place location, the answer
is that the theme has simply moved to another location. In to bottle the
wine, for instance, the theme (wine) simply moves to the place location
with respect to another previous location. And if we ask the question of
what has happened to the place (bottle) as a result of the movement of
the theme, we can say that it does not appear to be changed or affected
in any way, its inherent properties of bottleness remain intact, indepen-
dent of the theme.
In Group A verbs, however, the Place object is not quite the same
after the theme has moved in relation to it. In to wax the car, upon arriv-
ing at the place location, the theme becomes a descriptive property of
the place object and actually becomes part of the place rather than just
simply establishing a locative relation to it. We can even comment on
what has happened to the place object (i.e., after X waxes the car, the
car is now shiny; after X greases the pan, the pan is now covered with
grease; after X spices the food, the food is now spicier, and so forth). In
Group A verbs, the theme and the place become one conceptual unit
after movement. Group B verbs rather simply express a locational rela-
tion. So denominal verbs do hold constraints on their relation with the
noun that surfaces as their direct object. We see a precise relation estab-
lished between the theme and the place objects in each alternation.
So far I have presented denominallocative verbs that mean 'to put
one thing in or on to another'. These put verbs (Groups A and B) are
called amative verbs since they carry the meaning of adding one thing
in or on to another (Marchand 1969:369). But locative denominal verbs
also include a class of privative verbs (verbs that mean 'to take away or
remove one thing from another'. A curious regularity among locative
denominals is that the privative verbs pattern syntactically in a similar
way to amative denominals and can be explained in terms of affected-
ness in a similar fashion.

Group A Group B
to pit the prune to mine the coal
to skin the rabbit to quarry the marble
to feather the goose
to peel the apple
to dust the shelf
4 WORD, VOLUME 48, NUMBER 1 (APRIL, 1997)

To pit the prune can be paraphrased as to remove the pit from the prune
while to mine the coal can be paraphrased as to remove the coal from the
mine. Once again, we see that in Group A remove Verbs, the underlying
direct object becomes the denominal verb, whereas in Group B, the
underlying object of the preposition becomes the denominal verb. In
addition, consistent with ornative verbs, the underlying theme is the
denominal verb in Group A [an active agent causes the pit (theme) to
move from the prune (place) to an unspecified point], while the under-
lying place is the denominal in Group B verbs [an active agent causes
coal (theme) to move from the mine (place) to an unspecified point].
Group A verbs receive an affectedness reading: removing the pit from
the prune changes and affects the prune (it is no longer whole or com-
plete). Group B verbs, on the other hand, receive a location reading only
with no change to the inherent properties of the place object: to remove
coal from a mine does not result in any substantial change to the mine;
the mine still remains intact even after coal is extracted from it.

2. Words that are their opposites. A curious phenomenon that

occurs in English as a result of the fact that denominal locatives as a
group are capable of producing either a put or remove reading is that we
find certain words in the language that carry two potentially opposite
meanings. The following list of paired phrases demonstrates that the
denominal Group A verbs dust, feather, seed, string, trim, milk, tail,
bark, bone, and cork, as examples, produce a put reading in (a) but a
remove reading in (b). ·

(la) to dust the cake pans (or crops)= to put dust on [i.e., flour dust;
insecticide dust]

(1 b) to dust the shelves = to remove dust from the shelves

(2a) to feather an arrow = to put feathers on the arrow

(2b) to feather a goose = to remove the feathers from the goose

(3a) to seed the lawn = to put grass seed on the lawn

(3b) to seed the grapes = to remove the seeds from the grapes

(4a) to string the guitar= to put strings on the guitar

 BUCK: NOUN TO VERB CONVERSION 5

(4b) to string the beans = to remove the strings from the beans

(5a) to trim the tree =to put trim decorations on the Xmas tree

(5b) to trim the tree= to remove branches from the tree

(6a) to milk the tea= to put milk in the tea

(6b) to milk the cow= to remove milk from the cow

(7a) to tail the kite= to put a tail (ribbon) on the kite

(7b) to tail the mouse = to remove the tail from the mouse 5

(8a) to bark the leather= to put bark (an infusion of) on leather

(8b) to bark the tree = to remove bark from the tree

(9a) to bone the manure = to put bones in manure

(9b) to bone the fish = to remove bones from the fish

(lOa) to cork the bottle= to put a cork on the bottle

(lOb) to cork the oak= to remove the cork (outer tissue of the stem)
from the oak

What, then, are the semantic/syntactic constraints that are operating on

our understanding of these verbs? In other words, how do we know,
when we hear one of these ambiguous words, whether the verb means
'to put X on' or 'to remove X from'?
One way to explore the meaning of these verbs is to examine the
world knowledge that is assumed in our understanding of the denomi-
nal verb. If we systematically trace and describe the processes, events,
and states associated with our knowledge of concrete objects and look
at them in relation to what we know about space and time and basic
physical laws, we arrive at a better understanding of the relation
between the verb and its arguments (Clark and Clark 1979:769). It is
clear that the semantics of these verbs is relational rather than inherent.
But which part of the meaning is inherent to the verb? How much?
Where is the boundary? What world knowledge restrictions operate
6 WORD, VOLUME 48, NUMBER 1 (APRIL, 1997)

between the verbs in these cases and their direct objects? What restric-
tions do these verbs place on the set of possible objects they choose?

3. Characteristics of remove verbs. If we consider the following

examples of Group A remove verbs, we find that typical of privative
verbs in general is that, in the real world, we find the objects which are
represented as the theme existing in some sort of natural affected state
prior to the denominal action of the verb (Marchand 1973:637). Most
are part-whole relations.
Group A Privative Verbs
bark the leather limb the tree
beard the oysters lint the cottonseed
bone the fish milk the cow
bowel the squirrel peel the apple
burl the cloth pinion the bird
core the apple pod the peas
cork the oak rind the tree
dust the shelf scalp the man
feather the goose shell the peanut
fin the fish shuck the com
flea the dog stalk the fruit
fleece the sheep stem the grapes
gill the fish stone the plums
gut the fish weed the yard
hull the barley wind the woman
husk the com worm the dog

However, the more important point is that the objects which are themes
cannot possibly be put where they are by an active agent since they
occur naturally in this state. For instance, in the example to bone a fish,
an active agent cannot cause the event of putting bones inside a fish.
One cannot put bowels inside a squirrel; or burls on a cloth; or a core in
an apple; or a fin on a fish. So the action of Group A privative verbs is
constrained by the nature of the relation between the selected themes
and places. The action that an active agent can undertake can go only
one way. An active agent can only remove the theme from the place
object; the reverse put action can never be performed. 6

4. Words that are, but aren't, their opposites. If we go back to a few

of the paired examples of Group A two-meaning verbs listed in Section
2, we notice that each verb does not really potentially carry, after all, two
directly opposite meanings. In the first example of to dust, the underly-
ing place nouns in the paired examples refer to different objects in the
 BUCK: NOUN TO VERB CONVERSION 7

real world, and so do the underlying nouns acting as themes. Dust in the
put reading refers to flour dust or insecticide dust; dust in the remove
reading refers to the dust that simply occurs naturally on objects in our
environment. It is important to note that the denominal privative verb to
dust never means 'to remove flour dust from the cake pans' or 'to
remove insecticide dust from the crops.'
The same holds true for examples (3), (4 ), (7), (8), and (1 0). To seed
in (3b) means 'to remove the seeds which naturally occur in grapes'; to
string in (4b) means 'to remove the strings which naturally occur on
beans.' To seed as a remove verb never means 'to remove grass seed from
the lawn'; to string never means 'to remove strings from a guitar.'
In examples (2) and (9), the underlying nouns acting as themes
refer to the same objects in the real world, but the place referents are dif-
ferent. In to feather, as representative, the feather in (2b) exists in a nat-
ural state on the goose; in (2a), the feather does not share a natural state
relation with the arrow. The privative denominal verb, to feather, then,
never means 'to remove the feather from the arrow'.
The verb to trim in example (5) is a bit more ambiguous because
the underlying place nouns in (a) and (b) refer to potentially the same
object in the real world. Even though (a) could refer to an artificial tree,
it may also refer to a "real" tree. However, again, the phrases are not
truly ambiguous since the underlying theme nouns refer to different
objects: in (a), trim refers to decorations, ornaments, and so forth; in (b),
trim can only refer to tree branches that occur in a natural state on a
"real" tree. Once again, the privative denominal to trim may not mean
'to remove the Xmas decorations from the Xmas tree.'
The point here is that the reverse action of a privative verb is not the
action characterized by an omative verb. A Group A remove verb does
not mean the reverse action of a Group A put verb simply because put
verbs select objects that active agents can put on or in the intended place
objects.
Dusting a cake with sugar, for instance, is something an active
agent can do. Sugar on top of a cake does not occur naturally; the nat-
ural state of a cake does not include powdered sugar on it. Therefore,
dusting a cake is a well-formed omative verb but is disallowed as a pri-
vative verb; the constraint of natural state relation between theme and
place nouns disallows cake from being selected as the place object of
the privative verb.
To cork the bottle is an interesting example to look at. To cork the
bottle meaning 'to put a cork on the bottle' is a well-formed omative
verb. An active agent has the ability or power to cause the cork to be
8 WORD, VOLUME48,NUMBER 1 (APRIL, 1997)

moved from Point A to (on) Point B (the bottle). However, the reverse
action would be simply to remove the cork from the bottle-move the
cork from Point B back to Point A. But to cork the bottle is an impossi-
ble privative verb. Since the cork top does not occur in a natural state on
the bottle (a state which may not involve an active agent), to cork the
bottle can get only an amative reading.
In the example to trim the tree, when the theme refers to decora-
tions, we realize that an active agent can move decorating trim onto a
tree; the decorations do not occur in a natural state on the tree. This
allows for a well-formed amative reading. Trimming the tree may not
receive a privative reading ('to remove the decorations from the tree') as
long as the referent of the theme remains decorating trim. But trim can
also refer to tree branches. Since tree branches occur in a natural state
on trees (an active agent being unable ever to put them there in the first
place), trimming the tree may receive a privative meaning.
We are constrained then not to interpret dust the cake as 'remove
dust from the cake' or feather the arrow as 'remove the feather from the
arrow'. The constraint on privative verbs is that we can only remove
things from objects that have an initial natural prestate that does not
involve an active agent. For a charted illustration of denominals and
their opposites, please see the Appendix.

5. Reversing Group B remove verbs. As mentioned in Section 1,

Group B privative verbs 1) incorporate the underlying object of the
preposition (the place noun) as denominal verb; and 2) carry a simple
location reading rather than an affectedness reading to the place object.
Consistent with the additional constraint of natural state relation
between theme and place nouns, privative Group B verbs are conse-
quently limited in number in English. Only two denominal remove
verbs that I have found denote removal of an object from a particular
place where the place is a natural place location and where removal of
that object from the place location does not affect the place location.
They are to mine and to quarry.
We note, then, that we have no privative denominal verbs which
mean 'removal of an object from a place location that is not found in
nature.' The verb *to dresser, for instance, meaning 'to remove the
clothes from the dresser' would be an impossible privative verb in En-
glish since clothes and dresser do not share a natural state relation.
Active agents are responsible for putting clothes in dressers; the clothes
do not just exist there naturally.
The reverse action of Group B privative verbs is not possible since
 BUCK: NOUN TO VERB CONVERSION 9

an active agent simply cannot put coal in a mine or marble in a quarry.

Those objects exist in their natural states in these natural place locations.

6. Reversing Group B put verbs. This leads us to the point that the
direct opposite of a Group B ornative verb, such as bag, cage, coop, and
box as examples, cannot be a denominal verb. The verb in *to bag the
groceries meaning '*to remove the groceries from the bag' is an impos-
sible denominal verb, not because the ornative verb to bag already exists
but because bag does not meet the natural state requirements of priva-
tive verbs. In our lexicon, the vehicle we use instead to capture the
opposite (reverse) action of put denominal verbs is the prefix un-,as we
see from the following examples. 7

Put inion (Group B) Remove from (un-)

to bag the groceries
to cage the animals
to coop the chickens
to box the apples
to corner the mouse
to string the beads
to saddle the rider
to shelve the books
to earth the corpse
to seat the people
to unbag the groceries
to uncage the animals
to uncoop the chickens
to unbox the apples
to uncorner the mouse
to unstring the beads
to unsaddle the rider
to unshelve the books
to unearth the corpse
to unseat the people

The prefix un-, however, does not do a complete job of reversing all
Group B ornative denominals. Even though to unskewer the meat, to
unbottle the wine, and to unspool the thread are all possible verbs, they
do not seem to be used. Likewise, the following are a few examples of
verbs that appear to be accidental gaps in the language. Some are logi-
cally strange, but a few could be possible verbs but do not seem to be
used.

*to unland the plane *to unjail the prisoner

*to unlodge the guests
*to undock the boat
*to unbench the players
*to uncellar the wine
*to undairy the milk
*to uncurb the dog
*to uncan the fruit
*to unfile the report
*to unbank the money

7. Reversing Group A put verbs. Group A ornative verbs capture

different degrees of affectedness on the place object after movement of
the theme has occurred. Some verbs such as in to saddle the horse, to
10 WORD, VOLUME 48, NUMBER 1 (APRIL, 1997)

newspaper the shelf, and to mast the ship result in the theme and place
forming one conceptual affected unit, yet the theme and the place do not
converge as they do in such verbs as to sugar the tea, to wax the car, to
oil the pan, etc. The place remains intact, but affected, in these Group A
verbs of least affect. The reverse action of these Group A amative verbs
is captured by the prefix un- (yet another function of the prefix). The fol-
lowing verbs represent a few examples of Group A omatives of least
affect that have reverse actions captured by un-.

Put inion (Group A) Remove from (un-)

to saddle the horse to unsaddle the horse
to newspaper the shelf to unnewspaper the shelf
to mast the ship to unmast the ship
to cork the bottle to uncork the bottle
to mask her face to unmask her face
to crown the king to uncrown the king
to cover the pillow to uncover the pillow
to screw the mirror to unscrew the mirror
to wire the phone to unwire the phone
to pin the dress to unpin the dress
to roof the house to unroof the house
to cap the bottle to uncap the bottle

Some Group A put verbs simply cannot logically reverse. A few

examples are sugar the tea, butter the bread, dust the cake, salt the fish
(meaning salt with a salt shaker). An active agent simply cannot remove
the sugar from the tea once it has been put in the tea; every bit of butter
cannot be removed from the bread; every flake of powdered sugar can-
not be removed from the cake once it has been sprinkled on; every
morsel of salt cannot be removed from the fish. The place object
becomes so affected by the theme noun after movement that the theme
and the place objects essentially become one unit. Consequently, no
verb that captures such a reverse process is in the lexicon.
Other Group A put verbs also result in the same complete affective
state, but they can reverse simply because some very extensive process
has been devised in the real world to remove the theme object from the
place. We note that the following Group A amative denominal verbs are
actions that are carried out by an active agent, and the action in each
case results in a complete affective state of the place object: to grease
the wool; to gum the silk; to lead or silver or tin the object. The reverse
activity is, of course, not captured by a denominal verb since an active
agent can put grease, gum, lead, silver, or tin on the place Qbject (a con-
 BUCK: NOUN TO VERB CONVERSION 11

dition not allowed by privative verbs). In the lexicon, the reverse activ-
ity of these verbs is captured by the prefix de-: to degrease the wool, to
degum the silk, 8 to delead or de silver or detin the object. I believe one
can desalt fish, meaning 'to remove salt that was used to cure or preserve
the fish'. So one of the functions of de- is to capture reversal of affective
states of natural place objects that have been affected by an active agent.
Interesting about the prefix de- is that is has an additional function:
it overlaps with the function of privative denominal verbs in that it also
captures the meaning of 'removal of an object from a preexisting natur-
al state (that may not be put there by an active agent)': dehorn the cat-
tle is an example, as is defrost the refrigerator. De-ice the plane, delint
the clothes, desalt the water (the urine, the solution), defat the antigen,
deforest the hill, and degrain the leather are other examples. 9
The result of this overlapping function with privative verbs is that
10
we find in the lexicon redundant pairs such as the following:
Remove from (Group A) Remove from (de-)
to bark the tree to debark the tree
to bone the fish to debone the fish
to bowel the squirrel to debowel the squirrel
to bur the wool to debur the wool
to burr the chestnut to deburr the chestnut
to flesh the cow to deftesh the cow
to germ the wheat to degerrn the wheat
to gut the fish to degut the fish
to hair the hide to dehair the hide
to hull the oats to dehull the oats
to husk the com to dehusk the com
to lint the cottonseed to delint the cottonseed
to louse the clothing to delouse the clothing
to plume the pigeon to deplume the pigeon
to scale the metal to descale the metal
to tail the mouse to detail the mouse

8. Conclusion. A study of denominal verbs offers a microcosmic

view into our knowledge of the semantics of verbs in general. My inter-
est is to attempt to specify the type of unconscious semantic knowledge
that native speakers have that allows them to make distinctions between
selected types of denominal verbs. But the interests are driven by larger
and more important questions: How do we organize our mental lexicon
of verbs, and what connection does this reveal about language and the
way we perceive events, states, processes, and objects in our everyday
world? As Jackendoff (1983) states, the study of meaning in language
12 WORD, VOLUME 48, NUMBER I (APRIL, !997)

can, after all, reveal something to us about "what we perceive and what
we do" (p. 3).
Most denominal verbs, as we have seen, are characterized by their
concrete nature: they involve very common objects and events in our
everyday lives (sugar, milk, paint, powder, fleas, weeds, for instance).
Most curious, though, about these verbs as a group is that a very large
number of common nouns cannot be converted into denominallocative
verbs. We do not say, for instance, *to bowl the milk, *to apartment the
dog, *to pineapple the cake, or *to thyme the soup. Verbs like *to hand-
kerchief, *to bra, *to teapot, *to tablecloth, *to pillow, *to sofa, *to win-
dow are not denominal verbs. What constraints are operating, then, on
our understanding of locative denominals as a group that allows us to
know which nouns are easily converted and others disallowed from the
group?
It is curious that many of the common nouns that convert into
denominal verbs have etymological origins that predate Anglo-Saxon.
Most of the privative verbs, in fact, noticeably deal with agricultural
activities (some of which are obscure to us, like barking leather, burring
wool, and hurling cloth). It is possible that some sort of historical con-
straint is operating on these verbs; perhaps the answer is to be found in
a study of Indo-European roots of these locative verbs as a group.

Eastern Illinois University

Department of English
600 Lincoln A venue
Charleston, IL 61920-3099

ENDNOTES

1
I will always be indebted to Beth Levin for getting me "hooked" on denominal verbs.
The title of this paper, "Words that are their opposites," was used as the indexing title of an
Internet on-line discussion which took place on LINGUIST in January and February, 1995. I am
using the title here because it nicely captures the essence of these verbs, but I do not know who
originally coined the phrase; I would like to give full credit here to the person who did. The ideas
in this paper do not relate to that discussion, which focused mainly on semantic shifting rather than
on conversion, although a handful of examples of denominal verbs were mentioned in that discus-
sion.
2
Consistent with Clark and Clark ( 1979), included in the group of denominals are noun to verb
conversions that involve final voicing shifts (p. 768). The noun shelf, for instance, undergoes a
 BUCK: NOUN TO VERB CONVERSION 13

slight change in form as a verb, to shelve, but the verb is still included as a denominal since the
change is due simply to voicing.
3
As in my former study (Buck 1993), I continue my interest in the literal, concrete meanings
of these verbs. Clark and Clark's corpus includes innovative denominals, those that show
metaphorical and sometimes abstract uses of the verb. Some of the verbs in my corpus carry
extended meanings, too, but no attempt has been made in my analysis to capture the meaning of
each individual denominal verb in its entirety. I am interested, rather, in the basic meaning that
underlies all the verbs in this class, with the understanding that extended meanings are derived from
these basic underlying meanings.
4
See Clark and Clark ( 1979:769) and Duszak ( 1980:51) for a discussion of the use of the para-
phrase method in capturing the underlying semantics of denominal verbs.
5
See Bolton (1986) for more on body-part denominals.
6
0ne interesting exception I have found is to fish the stream, for I) one can certainly stock a
stream with fish; and 2) removing fish from the stream doesn't affect the stream in the same way
as the other privative verbs in this group.
7
I have found a few exceptions to the functions of de- as outlined in this paper. In the follow-
ing examples, de- appears to be overlapping with un- in capturing the reverse action of Group B
omative verbs: to dethrone the prince; to detomb the corpse; to debar the lawyer.
8
To ungum the silk is also an existing verb in the Oxford english dictionary. This possibility is
inconsistent with· the function of un- described in this paper.
9
For more on the functions of un- and de-, see Colen (1980/81) and Funk (1990).
10
Many of these examples are from Ross (1976).

REFERENCES

Bolton, Whitney F. 1986. "Verbal conversion." English today 7:39-40.

Buck, R. A. 1993. "Affectedness and other semantic properties of English denominal locative
verbs." American speech 68.2: 139-60.
Clark, Eve V. and Herbert H. Clark. 1979. "When nouns surface as verbs." Language
55.4:767-811.
Colen, Alexandra. 1980/81. "On the distribution of un-, de-and dis- in English verbs expressing
reversativity." Studia Germanica Gandensia 21:127-52.
Funk, Wolf-Peter. 1990. "On the semantic and morphological status of reversative verbs in English
and German." Further insights into contrastive analysis. Ed. Jacek Fisiak. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. Pp. 441-59.
Duszak, Anna. 1980. "A semantic description of English verbs with semantically and formally
related nominal counterparts." Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny 27:49-71.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A syn-
chronic-diachronic approach. 2nd ed. Munich: C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
368-71.
- - - . 1973. "Reversative, ablative, and privative verbs in English, French, and German." Issues
in linguistics. Eds. Braj Kachru, et al. Urbana: University of Illinois. Pp. 636-43.
Ross, Alan S. C. 1976. "Meaningless 'de-' in English." Notes and queries 23:310-11.
14 WORD, VOLUME 48, NUMBER I (APRIL, 1997)

APPENDIX
DENOMINALS AND THEIR OPPOSITES

Put (Group A) Reverse Action

I . cork the bottle uncork the bottle

[put cork on the bottle] [remove the cork from the bottle]

2. dust the cake *---

[put sugar dust on the cake] *[remove sugar dust from the cake]

3. grease the wool degrease the wool

[put grease on the wool] [remove grease from the wool]

Put (Group B) Reverse action

I. bag the groceries unbag the groceries

[put groceries in the bag] [remove groceries from the bag]

2. to cellar the wine *---

[put wine in the cellar] [remove wine from the cellar]

Reverse action Remove (Group A)( de-)

1.*---. bone/debone the fish

*[put bone in the fish] [remove bone from the fish]

Remove (de-)

2.* - - - . dehorn the cattle

*[put horns on the cattle] [remove horns from the cattle]

Reverse action Remove (Group B)

1.*---. mine the coal

*[put coal in the mine] [remove coal from the mine]