The language that I'm working on makes a variety of distinctions among negation, separating usages that English (and from your comments, many other languages) group together. For example, one form of negation is equivalent to the logical 'not', another to the logical 'anti'. In English, if we say we're unhappy or not happy, that's almost always interpreted as meaning we're unsatisfied or displeased. But if we describe a color as "not green", no one assumes that the color must be red. In my conlang, 'not happy' and 'anti-happy' are distinct - all concepts are negated in the same way English negates color. There are also "not anti-state" and "neither state nor anti-state" prefixes. There's no inherent reason why we'd need words for both ends of any polarity. But our 'subconscious' or 'preconscious' minds don't seem to process 'not' very well - like telling someone not to think of a purple elephant. Athletes trying to perform a difficult task are told to think about the desired outcome rather than telling themselves to avoid mistakes, because all the wrong associations are activated otherwise. If a language lacks a name for one end of a polarity, it's going to change the way its speakers think. That was the intention of Newspeak's design, after all - to direct the associations people had when they used it. Matt G.