WoUtNW
Hello! Here's the next word: Surreptitious
It means furtive, stealthy, sneaking, but with a dash of secret or clandestine.
People who aren't very good at spelling might have trouble with whether to double the 'r'. I guess they could also stick an 'e' in between the 'p' and the 't' if for some reason they thought the word was related to "repetitious". They also might have uncertainty regarding the vowel immediately after the /r/. (Maybe it should be an 'i'?) My advice is to install a dedicated orthographic transcoding hash reconciliation module in the fourth layer of the principal white matter conduit between your cerebellum and hippocampus. Failing that, I guess you're just going to spell stuff wrong a lot.
More or less from surripere, "to steal secretly" which is in turn composed of sub- "under" and rapere "to snatch, rape" (whence "raptor", etc). By the time it gets to Modern English, we've ditched the "stealing stuff" connotation and just kept the sneaky part.
Um, dude, it's not "subreptitious". sur- means "over", and sub- means "under", and this word quite clearly scores zero on the "how many 'b's does this word have" scale.
Nice catch, Eagle Eye. As it so happens, sometimes sub- turns into sur- as in "surrogate". Why would someone make a switch that creates a situation where the prefix sur- could mean either "over" or "under"? Basically just to mess with us, I guess. As it happens there is also an infrequently used word, "subreption", meaning a deliberate misrepresentation or an inference drawn from such, as well as "subreptive" as an obsolete synonym for "surreptitious".
How to use "surreptitious":
A PERSON with a Wart on His Nose met a Person Similarly Afflicted, and said, "Let me propose your name for membership in the Imperial Order of Abnormal Proboscidians, of which I am the High Noble Toby and Surreptitious Treasurer. Two months ago I was the only member. One month ago there were two. To-day we number four Emperors of the Abnormal Proboscis in good standing - doubles every four weeks, see? That's geometrical progression - you know how that piles up. In a year and a half every man in California will have a wart on his Nose. Powerful Order! Initiation, five dollars."
"My friend," said the Person Similarly Afflicted, "here are five dollars. Keep my name off your books."
"Thank you kindly," the Man with a Wart on His Nose replied, pocketing the money; "it is just the same to us as if you joined. Good-by."
He went away, but in a little while he was back.
"I quite forgot to mention the monthly dues," he said.
Or....
To this reasoning it may perhaps be objected, that if any State should be disaffected to the authority of the Union, it could at any time obstruct the execution of its laws, and bring the matter to the same issue of force, with the necessity of which the opposite scheme is reproached.
The plausibility of this objection will vanish the moment we advert to the essential difference between a mere NON-COMPLIANCE and a DIRECT and ACTIVE RESISTANCE. If the interposition of the State legislatures be necessary to give effect to a measure of the Union, they have only NOT TO ACT, or TO ACT EVASIVELY, and the measure is defeated. This neglect of duty may be disguised under affected but unsubstantial provisions, so as not to appear, and of course not to excite any alarm in the people for the safety of the Constitution. The State leaders may even make a merit of their surreptitious invasions of it on the ground of some temporary convenience, exemption, or advantage.
It means furtive, stealthy, sneaking, but with a dash of secret or clandestine.
People who aren't very good at spelling might have trouble with whether to double the 'r'. I guess they could also stick an 'e' in between the 'p' and the 't' if for some reason they thought the word was related to "repetitious". They also might have uncertainty regarding the vowel immediately after the /r/. (Maybe it should be an 'i'?) My advice is to install a dedicated orthographic transcoding hash reconciliation module in the fourth layer of the principal white matter conduit between your cerebellum and hippocampus. Failing that, I guess you're just going to spell stuff wrong a lot.
More or less from surripere, "to steal secretly" which is in turn composed of sub- "under" and rapere "to snatch, rape" (whence "raptor", etc). By the time it gets to Modern English, we've ditched the "stealing stuff" connotation and just kept the sneaky part.
Um, dude, it's not "subreptitious". sur- means "over", and sub- means "under", and this word quite clearly scores zero on the "how many 'b's does this word have" scale.
Nice catch, Eagle Eye. As it so happens, sometimes sub- turns into sur- as in "surrogate". Why would someone make a switch that creates a situation where the prefix sur- could mean either "over" or "under"? Basically just to mess with us, I guess. As it happens there is also an infrequently used word, "subreption", meaning a deliberate misrepresentation or an inference drawn from such, as well as "subreptive" as an obsolete synonym for "surreptitious".
How to use "surreptitious":
A PERSON with a Wart on His Nose met a Person Similarly Afflicted, and said, "Let me propose your name for membership in the Imperial Order of Abnormal Proboscidians, of which I am the High Noble Toby and Surreptitious Treasurer. Two months ago I was the only member. One month ago there were two. To-day we number four Emperors of the Abnormal Proboscis in good standing - doubles every four weeks, see? That's geometrical progression - you know how that piles up. In a year and a half every man in California will have a wart on his Nose. Powerful Order! Initiation, five dollars."
"My friend," said the Person Similarly Afflicted, "here are five dollars. Keep my name off your books."
"Thank you kindly," the Man with a Wart on His Nose replied, pocketing the money; "it is just the same to us as if you joined. Good-by."
He went away, but in a little while he was back.
"I quite forgot to mention the monthly dues," he said.
Or....
To this reasoning it may perhaps be objected, that if any State should be disaffected to the authority of the Union, it could at any time obstruct the execution of its laws, and bring the matter to the same issue of force, with the necessity of which the opposite scheme is reproached.
The plausibility of this objection will vanish the moment we advert to the essential difference between a mere NON-COMPLIANCE and a DIRECT and ACTIVE RESISTANCE. If the interposition of the State legislatures be necessary to give effect to a measure of the Union, they have only NOT TO ACT, or TO ACT EVASIVELY, and the measure is defeated. This neglect of duty may be disguised under affected but unsubstantial provisions, so as not to appear, and of course not to excite any alarm in the people for the safety of the Constitution. The State leaders may even make a merit of their surreptitious invasions of it on the ground of some temporary convenience, exemption, or advantage.