True, though many of the examples in the article, are from Old English using English derivations. Rue, ruth, ruthful, ruthless. The middle two have been so long forgotten Firefox gave them red squiggles. We rarely use some of the Old English suffixes and prefixes productively, retained mostly in fixed forms. Core Anglo-Saxon roots had a large space of valid, or possibly valid, words: wield, unwield, a-wield, wielder, unwieldy, wieldy, wieldingful, wieldingless, wieldingfulness, wieldinglessness, wieldinghood, unwieldinghood, a-wieldingful, a-wieldinglessness, and so on.
The Old English equivalent of unwieldinghood would be something like, the condition of being unarmed or unable to control something, and I bet it had the same emasculating subtext it implies to my modern English mind. Perhaps not and maybe it would come to mean something like demilitarization, if we had kept it. Either way, we do not know as it is a long dead language without the abundance of sources like with Latin to cast light on the finest shades of meaning. 'Wieldingfulness' would be a noun meaning an abundance of wielding, close to but distinct from strength, perhaps implying confidence, and something one hopes the army has. Or maybe the Supreme Court's judges would have wieldingfulness; we still wield the law today and it could have come to mean mental adroitness and intensity, as to wield was also about will, not just physically grasping. 'A-wieldinglessness' might be incompetency at taking up arms, or holding a leadership position, or responding to a challenge, and perhaps suggests... slow on the draw, clumsy, flailing about? I think. Who knows? They are not real words after all; though they could have been.
The Old English equivalent of unwieldinghood would be something like, the condition of being unarmed or unable to control something, and I bet it had the same emasculating subtext it implies to my modern English mind. Perhaps not and maybe it would come to mean something like demilitarization, if we had kept it. Either way, we do not know as it is a long dead language without the abundance of sources like with Latin to cast light on the finest shades of meaning. 'Wieldingfulness' would be a noun meaning an abundance of wielding, close to but distinct from strength, perhaps implying confidence, and something one hopes the army has. Or maybe the Supreme Court's judges would have wieldingfulness; we still wield the law today and it could have come to mean mental adroitness and intensity, as to wield was also about will, not just physically grasping. 'A-wieldinglessness' might be incompetency at taking up arms, or holding a leadership position, or responding to a challenge, and perhaps suggests... slow on the draw, clumsy, flailing about? I think. Who knows? They are not real words after all; though they could have been.