A history of the English Language

164.
Rejected Words.
There are some things about language that we cannot explain. One of them is why certain 
words survive while others, apparently just as good, do not. Among the many new words 
that were introduced into English at this time there were a goodly number that we have 
not permanently retained. Some are found used a few times and then forgotten. Others 
enjoyed a rather longer life without becoming in any sense popular. A few were in 
sufficiently common use for a while to seem assured of a permanent place but later, for 
some reason, lost favor and dropped out of use. 
Uncounsellable,
for example, was very 
common in the seventeenth century but after that practically disappeared. Some of the 
new words were apparently too learned and smelled too much of the lamp. 
Anacephalize,
a Greek word meaning “to sum up,” was of this sort and the more unnecessary since we 
had already adopted the Latin 
recapitulate
.
 Deruncinate
(to weed) was another, although 
it was no worse than 
eradicate
for which we had the English expression 
to root out
. 
Elyot’s 
adminiculation
(aid) and 
illecebrous
(delicate, alluring) are of the same sort. 
Some words might logically have survived but did not. 
Expede
(to accomplish, expedite) 
would have been parallel to 
impede
. 
Cohibit
(to restrain) is like 
inhibit
and 
prohibit
.
 
Demit
(to send away) was common in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and would 
have been as natural as 
commit
or 
transmit,
but 
dismiss
gradually replaced it. It is in fact 
not uncommon to find words discarded in favor of somewhat similar formations. 
Examples are 
exsiccate
(to dry) alongside of 
desiccate, emacerate
(emaciate), 
discongruity
(incongruity), 
appendance
(appendage). In some cases we have preferred a 
A history of the english language 210

---

word in a shorter form: 
cautionate
(caution), 
consolate
(console), 
attemptate
(attempt), 
denunciate
(denounce). Often there seems to be no explanation but chance or caprice to 
account for a word’s failure to survive. 
Eximious
(excellent, distinguished) is frequently 
found in seventeenth-century literature and was used by Browning, but is now unknown 
or at least very rare. Similarly, 
mansuetude
(mildness) has a history that extends from 
Chaucer to Browning, but it is no longer used. We have given up 
disaccustom, 
disacquaint, disadorn,
etc., but we say 
disabuse, disaffect, disagree
. Shakespeare used 
disquantity
as a verb meaning ‘to lessen in quantity’ or ‘diminish.’ Sometimes we have 
kept one part of speech and discarded another. We say 
exorbitant
but not 
exorbitate
(to 
stray from the ordinary course), 
approbation
but not 
approbate, consternation
but not 
consternate
. The most convincing reason for the failure of a new word to take hold is that 
it was not needed. 
Aspectable
(visible), 
assate
(to roast) and the noun 
assation, exolete
(faded), 
suppeditate
(furnish, supply), and many other rejected words were unnecessary, 
and there was certainly no need for 
temulent
when we had 
drunk, intoxicated,
and a score 
of other expressions of various degrees of respectability to express the idea. We must 
look upon the borrowings of this period as often experimental. New words were being 
freely introduced at the judgment or caprice of the individual. They were being tried out, 
sometimes in various forms. In Shakespeare’s day no one could have told whether we 
should say 
effectual, effectuous, effectful, effectuating,
or 
effective
. Two of these five 
options have survived. It was necessary for time to do the sifting.