Oh, and I stand corrected. I was mistaken when I said obstinancy was not a word. I couldn't find it in a few dictionaries, but clearly it is in some, perhaps as nonstandard, but still a word, I suppose.

What about compliance vs. compliancy? Consistency vs. consistence? Subsistence vs. subsistency? Personally, I would use the former in each case, but dictionaries list both.

Speedwell, et al., I have to take issue with many of your comments. Nowhere in the original question is there any indication that the root without the ab- need be a word at all, English or otherwise. Gossun only referred to "abnormal", the combination including the ab- as an English word. He never referred to "normal as being a word, nor did he state any requirement that the root portion be a word of any kind. If Gossun had written "...is there any other word than “normal” which is negated..." (which he did not) then your comments would make sense. Actually, his original question is not very well formed. Abnormal isn't "negated with" ab-; it is a "negation with" ab-. Perhaps that makes the original question somewhat ambiguous. Regardless, Dave's original response was quite correct. This would be true even considering that Gossun agrees with you about the intent of his original question. Whatever he intended, that's not what he asked. Furthermore, what's all this talk about Latinates, Anglo-Saxon, Old French, Hindustani, Klingonese, etc.? An English word is an English word regardless of its origin. The very idea that the original question should be limited to words of Anglo-saxon origin makes absolutely no sense.

Very interesting, anon. You may be right. Just as you suspected, Emil's document says: "I waive the right...", not "I release the right..." Later on, it says: "I...release...the Department of Labor from all claims...", also consistent wth your comments.

I'm no lawyer either, but several sources define them similarly. In at least one case (irrelevant to your example), there may be a difference. Permission to deviate from some rule may also be referred to as a waiver. I don't think such permission would normally be referred to as a release. Release literally means to let go. Waive is more like "put aside".

I don't know, Douglas. I would agree with you that old-fashioned or not, you can't go wrong with it. It is becoming rarer, though. By the way, I meant ...elided..., not ...ellided....

"Dear" may certainly be correct in many circumstances, but it's been my experience, particularly in business communications, that both formality and informality have all but disappeared and been replaced by an unrelenting terseness. There is no more "dear" to initiate business correspondence. It has been replaced by simply "TO:" in a memo-style heading. More often than not, even this is ellided, replaced by simply the recipient(s) name(s). No more "Dear John". Now, simply "John," at the start of the letter. Or, "Group:" or "Team:" or "Staff:". This is not an informality. It is simply an abandonment of all pleasantries in a highly abbreviated style that freely uses sentence fragments and deletes any and all connecting words, even normally necessary verbs if they can be easily deduced (think telegram: "Acton items: John Doe to deliver prototype June 5th. Drawings to production June 6th"). I can't speak for the world at large, but this is what I have encountered in normal business communications for the past thirty years.

Archie, I would agree that as an adjective, orientated is more common in the UK with oriented being more common in the USA; however, it would be incorrect to state that the American version was derived from the British version. The use of "oriented" actually predates "orientated" by about a hundred years. As a verb, orient predates orientate by about five hundred years (in the UK, of course). The noun, orientation, came much later than even the adjective, oriented, and around the same time as orientated. So, I guess you can back-form orientate from orientation or you can "forward"-form oriented from the verb orient (It would seem odd to form orientate from the verb orient, which may be why many find it unacceptably redundant). Interesting that when you "form" a "formation", you don't "formate" it, do you? It is formed, not formated (not to be confused with formatted). Of course, there are examples on both sides: note (noun and verb), notate, noted, notated, notation, etc. Each word has its own history and shades of meaning.

Sorry Smart Hick, but you should look into it again because you are mistaken. While 1990 can be abreviated as '90, it would in fact be incorrect to abbreviate the nineties as the '90s. The apostrophe does go between the 0 and the s, as "the 90's". Of course, as has been alrady mentioned, the apostrophe can be omitted, just "the 90s". Some, not all, consider the extra apostrophe "old fashioned".

oops, that's ...committed...