Some words seem to exist only in the negative.  One such word is “uncouth”, which means lacking refinement.  For example, the Court of Appeal in People v. Williamson, 207 Cal. App. 2d 839 (1962) upheld a conviction for selling an obscene book, which one judge had described as “dismally unpleasant, tawdry and uncouth”.  The word is derived from the Old English word uncuð which is means not (un) known (cuð). However, I’ve never heard of someone described as exceedingly couth.  Nor could I find any examples of the use of “couth” in a reported California opinion.

Another example, is “ineluctable”, a word that appears in numerous California opinions.  See, e.g., FP v. Monier, 222 Cal.App.4th 1087 (2014) (“It is ineluctable that such a classification could most easily be made by the trial judge.”).  This word has Latin origins and is formed by in (not) and eluctari (to struggle out of). Despite the popularity of “ineluctable”, I could find no example in California appellate court using the word “eluctable” as in “the accident was entirely eluctable”.

Finally, “inordinate” enjoys wide popularity in California appellate opinions.  In Moriarty v. Laramar Management Corp., 224 Cal. App. 4th 125 (2014), for example, the Court of Appeal described the cases as “Another appeal that, assuming it has no merit, will result in an inordinate delay of the plaintiff’s case and cause him to incur more unnecessary attorney fees.”  However, I could find no court using ordinate as in “the case below proceeded with an ordinate celerity”.