 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004'non-availability' or unavailability
Which one is correct ? 'non-availability' or 'unavailability' Also, is there a way to guess, whether I should prefix with 'un' or 'non' to get the negativity? > Which one is correct ? > 'non-availability' or 'unavailability' unavailability > Also, is there a way to guess, whether I should prefix with 'un' or > 'non' to get the negativity? Words which are often negativised have usually developed an un- (or in-) form: happy, unhappy; controversial, uncontroversial, etc, etc. A good dictionary will list the vast majority of accepted un- words. If an un- (or in-) form exists with the meaning you require, use it rather than a non-- form. Non-- often means "lack of". Some words use non-- to form the negative if no un- word exists, or if un- would suggest the wrong meaning or create ambiguity. For example, *unproduction is wrong because to *unproduce would be to take something back from its produced state to its unproduced (ie. raw) state. A state of no production is a state of non-production. But there is no ambiguity with "unavailable" so no need to use the word "non-available". It is used but it's cant. Again, find a good dictionary and look down the (shorter) list of accepted non-- words. (It's "unco-operative" but "non-co-operation"!) Sometimes neither is possible. For example, I suppose one could invent a word and talk about someone's "non-coping" with a situation, but we just use "not": "someone('s) not coping". Adrian In article <db9bbf31.0401210930.6ac2f662@posting.google.com>, qazmlp1209@rediffmail.com (qazmlp) posted: > Which one is correct ? > 'non-availability' or 'unavailability' Go by current usage -- even online usage: there are fewer than 100,000 web pages with "non-availability", but over 300,000 with "unavailability" written on them. Next time, just google. *---===== English is Munglish =====---* Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti >In article <db9bbf31.0401210930.6ac2f662@posting.google.com>, > qazmlp1209@rediffmail.com (qazmlp) posted: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >but over 300,000 with "unavailability" written on them. >Next time, just google. Your post popped out because I'm still rebuilding my filters, but even you should know that Google cannot be counted on to accurately reflect current usage. Seventy percent of the money people spend over the Internet goes for porn; that should tell you something about how biased Googled sources are in their reflection of English, as generally used.  SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net >>In article <db9bbf31.0401210930.6ac2f662@posting.google.com>, >> qazmlp1209@rediffmail.com (qazmlp) posted: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >biased Googled sources are in their reflection of English, as >generally used. 'Ang on a sec like. You leave in a megamiff, unwilling to further suffer the suffocation of the group by insufferable trolls any more, then you bounce back in here and whaddyado? Respond in all seriousness to one of Usenet's infamously insufferable. Rant over. Good to see you back. P.S. You should be told that in your absence it's only got worse. Much worse. Mickwick has discovered smileys. -- Ross Howard > P.S. You should be told that in your absence it's only got worse. > Much worse. Mickwick has discovered smileys. And used one to show the carbuncles on his chin. SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. In alt.usage.english, Dena Jo wrote: >> P.S. You should be told that in your absence it's only got worse. >> Much worse. Mickwick has discovered smileys. > >And used one to show the carbuncles on his chin. I heard that. SignatureMickwick >>>In article <db9bbf31.0401210930.6ac2f662@posting.google.com>, >>> qazmlp1209@rediffmail.com (qazmlp) posted: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >then you bounce back in here and whaddyado? Respond in all seriousness >to one of Usenet's infamously insufferable. I was making a statement similar to those made by many others, yet we still see certain AUEers awarding Google far more credence than it deserves. One doesn't have to be a nut case like Dr J to do this, so it seems. >Rant over. Good to see you back. Thank you. More rants to come from one and all, I suspect. >P.S. You should be told that in your absence it's only got worse. Much >worse. Mickwick has discovered smileys. I have no problem with smileys if used in moderation. :-) SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net Dr. Jai Maharaj said: > > Which one is correct ? > > 'non-availability' or 'unavailability' [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but over 300,000 with "unavailability" written on them. > Next time, just google. Sorry I can't link to the original poster on my server, as the article is obsoleted here. However, I think that I would prefer Adrian Bailey's reply, in short, use a good dictionary/reference, such as: http://www.bartleby.com/reference/ where you will find that "non-availability" is not listed, while "unavailability" is listed and defined. Marius Hancu |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.