Re: I know it's wrong, but....

ending in -wise: the -wise termination was invariable. The word
well, for example, was replaced by goodwise.

In addition, any word -- this again applied in principle to every word in
the language -- could be negatived by adding the affix un-, or could be
strengthened by the affix plus-, or, for still greater emphasis,
doubleplus-. Thus, for example, uncold meant ?warm?, while pluscold and
doublepluscold meant, respectively, ?very cold? and ?superlatively
cold?. It was also possible, as in present-day English, to modify the
meaning of almost any word by prepositional affixes such as ante-,
post-, up-, down-, etc. By such methods it was found possible to bring
about an enormous diminution of vocabulary. Given, for instance, the
word good, there was no need for such a word as bad, since the required
meaning was equally well -- indeed, better -- expressed by ungood. All
that was necessary, in any case where two words formed a natural pair of
opposites, was to decide which of them to suppress. Dark, for example,
could be replaced by unlight, or light by undark, according to
preference.

The second distinguishing mark of Newspeak grammar was its regularity.
Subject to a few exceptions which are mentioned below all inflexions
followed the same rules. Thus, in all verbs the preterite and the past
participle were the same and ended in -ed. The preterite of steal was
stealed, the preterite of think was thinked, and so on throughout the
language, all such forms as swam, gave, brought, spoke, taken, etc.,
b