(A subject I raised in "Discussions" a couple of years ago.  I am indebted to contributors to that thread whose suggestions have formed part of this piece)

These fascinate me.  Words which are married to only one other word.

Take the phrase “a damp squib” in the sentence “the announcement was something of a damp squib”.  We understand perfectly the sense of it, although I suspect many will not know what a “squib” is.  But it’s its monogamy which excites me.

While “damp” is free to be promiscuous with any number of partners both noun and adjectival –rising damp, firedamp, damp patch etc, “squib” stays at home and does the ironing.  It is coupled only with “damp”.

Or “blithering”.  Married for life to “idiot”.  You might try – “blithering fool”, “blithering clot”, but they are clearly not compatible.  No, “blithering” has found its soulmate, albeit “idiot” has the faithfulness of an alley cat.

I’m less excited by hyphenated words.  “hurdy” begets “gurdy” and vice versa, and “hoity” and “toity” likewise.  But they Siamese twins and not lovers.  Incidentally, did anyone notice the appearance of that latin beauty “versa” in the previous sentence, holding on dewy-eyed to that rake “vice”?

Then there’s “falutin’” – only ever high.  And “het” – always “up”.  What can be “pyrrhic”?  only ever a “victory”.  “Hooks” might be “right hooks” or “ fishing hooks” or “clothes hooks” but “tenter” can only ever be “hooks”.  A “do” might be a “right do” or a “bit of a do” but in etymological romance “derring” could only find “do”.

And lastly “open” has a long list of sexual partners – “wide open”, “open door”, “open house” but her partner, “Mic”, is monogamous.