Why "Nothingness" Is Not a Word As I've pointed out in my thread, "An Exercise in "Nothing" Semantics", the word "nothing" doesn't denote anything (because, if it denoted something, it wouldn't be "nothing", but "something") - and can be replaced by a variation of "not anything", in any sentence. However, many people still make use of the word "Nothingness". According to the previously defined understanding of the word "nothing", "nothingness" cannot mean anything. Allow me to explain: The suffix, "-ness", is used (along with a word that it is connected to) to denote a state of something. e.g., if I say "fatness", I'm denoting the state of being fat. However, only "things" (entities), can have a state. Even if the "something" is merely conceptual, it can still have a state. The word "nothing", since it doesn't denote anything, cannot be denoting the state of anything. Does this make sense? Any comments/corrections/arguments/etc are appreciated.