Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am looking for a one-word antonym for "free" in the context of "a lack of something." For example: "pain-free/free of pain," "error-free/free of errors," "gluten-free/free of gluten"? To say "full" isn't quite right. If a forty-page text contains 1-2 typos, it is not "error-free," but it is also not "full of errors." What about "gluten"? If a pizza isn't "gluten-free," what is it? Gluten-full? Gluten-regular?

share|improve this question
5  
It contains gluten. Not every thought can be expressed using an adjective. That's why we have other parts of speech in the first place. –  RegDwigнt Sep 2 '13 at 9:23
    
gluten-laden is when there is a LOT of it –  mplungjan Sep 2 '13 at 9:28
2  
Contains gluten is the answer, as seen on packaging. See also: contains peanuts, or contains sugar. It also works with the "errors" example: the forty-page text contains errors, but doesn't work well with the experience of pain where you could say: I experience pain or I have some pain. –  ghoppe Sep 2 '13 at 9:32
    
"I contain pain." Hmm, works for me. Although, I can think of at least three different meanings ... –  hunter2 Sep 2 '13 at 9:35
2  
You don't want the antonym "full of errors", you want the negation "not free of errors". –  GEdgar Sep 2 '13 at 13:52

3 Answers 3

There is no universal one-word replacement for -free.

In the context of foods the appropriate portmanteau is gluten-containing

-containing can be used universally, although there are other alternatives depending on specific food components (eg, sugared for sugar-free)

another word that can be applied almost universally in the context of nutrition is -fortified

-enriched is another alternative but strictly applied refers to addition of an existing constituent (that has been lost during processing for example).

-full is applied in many instances (as in painful), but doesn't sit well with most foods (although -filled very often does).

share|improve this answer
    
I agree with most of this, but I think you're a little off on "fortified". That suggests an extra helping - not the case, here; no gluten was explicitly added to the *glutenic" pizza. // You know, there's two different kinds of "fortified wine", both of which start with 'normal' wine; one adds vitamins, one adds alcohol. –  hunter2 Sep 2 '13 at 11:37
    
you can say gluten-fortified flour [aaccnet.org/publications/cc/2002/September/Pages/79_5_737.aspx]. I think you are confusing 'fortification' with 'enrichment'. –  user49727 Sep 2 '13 at 11:42
    
That link doesn't work for me. // Yes, I'm certainly thinking of enrichment. Would you say that fortified could have either meaning? ("-containing" or "-enriched") / Would you agree that "fortified wine" means "wine with an extra additive", not "wine containing the normal ingredients in their normal proportions"? –  hunter2 Sep 2 '13 at 11:52
    
both terms are valid although there is subtle difference in meaning. Fortification is a global term whereas enrichment, strictly applied, refers to adding an existing constituent (for eg, which was lost during food processing). –  user49727 Sep 2 '13 at 11:59

The pizza with gluten is "conventional".

"Glutinous" sounds like it would be right, but it isn't necessairly so (a thing can be glutinous with no gluten!). "Glutenous" then ought to make sense, but isn't a word - likewise "glutenated".

"Gluten-inclusive" would be accurate, tolerable, and likely to peeve the gluten-intolerant.

"Gluten, free" or "Free gluten" would be excellent ways to advertise your pizzeria's generosity.

"Non-error-free" is "unedited". "Painful" is a word.

share|improve this answer
    
I'm going to start using gluten-full, no matter if it exists or not :- –  Jan Dvorak Sep 2 '13 at 9:35
    
glutenated isn't a word - how so? –  Jan Dvorak Sep 2 '13 at 9:36
    
@JanDvorak IDK, ignorantly so? A quick search (done after answering, of course) reveals "glutenated depresion" - presumably what happens to the gluten-intolerant when they watch me eat. Glutacular ... –  hunter2 Sep 2 '13 at 9:40
1  
It's worth pointing out that glutinous means "glue-like", which is why something can be "glutinous with no gluten". That said, glutenous can mean "containing gluten", or it can mean "glutinous". It's a sticky situation. –  J.R. Sep 2 '13 at 11:25
    
Well said, @J.R. I figured that glutenous would mean "containing gluten" if it was a word - but that it isn't. // (For the sticklers - yes, I missed a letter in "depression". I failed to depress the appropriate key - or, if it's the second one I missed, to re-press it.) –  hunter2 Sep 2 '13 at 11:33

The opposing suffixes for -free are

  • -filled for nouns
  • -able for verbs

e.g.,

  • Tax-free vs taxable
  • Gluten-free vs gluten-filled
  • Lead-free vs lead-filled
share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.