Quoting Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>:

> It's interesting that there can sometimes be more than
> one "opposite" to a word.  While I was atempting to
> discover which verb roots are necessary and which can
> be formed by a negating prefix on the root, I noticed
> that I need two different negating prefixes, one for
> "un" and one for "not".
> consider these opposites:
> take <-> not take (refuse)
> take <-> untake (give)
> make <-> not make
> make <-> unmake (destroy)
> know <-> not know
> know <-> unknow (forget)
> do <-> not do
> do <-> undo
> This seems more like the three points of a triangle
> than the two endpoints of a single spectrum.  Yet in
> other cases these two different opposites really mean
> about the same thing:
> welcome <-> not welcome
> welcome <-> unwelcome
> happy <-> not happy
> happy <-> unhappy

To me, "not happy" suggests merely the abscence of happiness, while "unhappy"
suggests its opposite; much like the examples above.

Anyway, I tend to think of it as the plain form being +1, the "not" form 0,
and the "un-" form as -1; "not" vs "un-" is abscence vs opposite. Doesn't work
always (damn lexicalizations!), but seems to be the main rule. Where I to
concoct an aux- or loglang, I'd be including two 'negative' markers to
distinguish precisely between abscence and opposite.

ObBadJoke: Does that mean I ought to have it in Yargish, an orcs' lang?