>>>>Liver isn't a verb though, so there can't really be any connection between it and 'deliver'.
>>>
>>>Once upon a time "card" wasn't a verb, now it is. So I'm still worried - will my liver remain livery and stable, once it becomes a verb too.
>>
>>I'm afraid your understanding is incorrect. 'Card' has been a verb for many many years. But it had nothing to do with IDs. Carding is separating wool fibres before spinning. It's done using cards (oddly enough).
>
>I should have known - there was a carded version of some cloth back in the heyday of Yugoslav socialist advertising (which wasn't really a psycho thing as it is today, but just equally boring and pestlike)... i.e. the word was thrown in just because it sounded foreign ("kardiran", but the word was "karta" not "kard" - which means nothing, so it should have been "kartiran" or even "kartovan"), and I've never heard it outside of an ad.
>
>>>> On the other hand, 'taken' and 'mistaken', or how about this, did you know that 'gruntle' is really a word, and actually does mean the opposite of 'disgruntle'?
>>>
>>>I did. Just like "to whelm" is, though nobody knows how to do it right.
>>
>>Kudos.
>>
>>BTW, this all makes me wonder (get ready for this one) - should 'understanding' and 'overlying' mean the same thing?
>
>No way (ergo, unreachable :). If you're understanding a tree, you're in danger of it falling on you; if you're overlying it, you have already fallen on it, not the other way around.

But I thought in grammar that a double negative makes a positive. So if 'under' and 'over' are opposites and 'standing' and 'lying' (regardless of the truth) are opposites, then taken as one, they should end up meaning the same thing. Are you saying that my logic is peccable?