Talk:List of auto-antonyms in English

Clarification

Section added. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this page could use some clarification. Here's some words I think aren't necessarily contradictory, depending on your point of view:

Against

In the examples given, the subjects are all diametrically opposed to their objects. Something that is against a wall is pushing against the wall, allowing it to stand. Something that is against the wind is pushing against the wind.

Awesome, Bad, etc.

Entries such as awesome, bad, nasty, and wicked are weak examples of auto-antonyms because their positive meanings simply use the intensity implied by their negative meanings. "He plays a wicked sax" gets a positive meaning directly from its negative meaning-- as in "it knocks me out". The two uses aren't really antonyms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.36 (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill

Strictly speaking, currency itself is a promissary note that means the issuing government owes you money. So isn't it still a document that indicates money owed?

Blunt

The contradiction supposedly comes from its use in a statement as "to the point". Perhaps instead of being "to the point", the meaning can be interpreted as "not discrete", in the manner that a mallet is not as discrete as a scalpel.

Inflammable

Perhaps this should be placed in a different article, such as one for misleading words.

Nasty

This entry fails to make it clear why the word is contradictory.

Stain

Although one form of stain is intentional and the other is undesirable, the result is the same.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallnicks (talk • contribs)

Suspicious / Curious / Pitiful

I didn't know if this class of words was truly "self-contradicting" in the sense intended by this article; they all are ambiguous as to whether the affected noun is the source or the object of suspicion/curiosity/pity. Is there a term for words like this? "Ergative Adjectives"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.99.123.63 (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Practised

This is British English, where there is no 'practiced', ´practice' being only used for the noun. Rothorpe 22:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

These two uses of the word are not contradictory. 66.35.34.89 00:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Pioneerman

Abroad

Abroad

meaning "somewhere in these parts" or, the opposite, "in a foreign land".

I can't find that first definition anywhere so I'm removing it. Please reference it. —mako๛ 08:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=abroad&title=21st

The second defintion, 'in circulation; at large' would seem to cover this. I'm not sure it's worth putting back in though, as there is no real contradiction between 'somewhere' and 'somewhere far away'. --carelesshx _talk 13:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fast

"Fast - as an adverb, it means "to move or do quickly"; as an adjective, as in "holding fast", it means "to not move". "

Both of the above uses of the word 'fast' are as adverbs. (When one says, "hold fast," 'fast' is not an adjective, but an adverb.)- 66.35.34.89 23:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Pioneerman

Literally

At what point did 'literally' stop meaning literally? The use of the word 'literally' to mean 'in effect, virtually, figuratively' or whatever is a misuse of the word and does not reflect its true meaning. Just because a word is used incorrectly, that doesn't mean that the meaning changes. Therefore, the word cannot be said to have two meanings, merely a correct and an incorrect usage. Maybe it would be better in a list called Words which when used incorrectly cause confusion, or simply Words. --carelesshx _talk 13:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Worth my salt (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that "just because ... doesn't mean" is commonly used doesn't mean that it's grammatically correct. --Nasorenga (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The notion of "used incorrectly" implies the existence of some master authority on the definitive usage. Since most dictionaries do not adopt this standard, but instead let the common usage be the definition, "literally" really does mean "virtually, or figuratively". I refer you to Dictionary.com, in which every single reference contains this, or a similar definition. 198.99.123.63 (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary lists both meanings, including quotes going nearly 2 centuries back. Either wiktionary is wrong or wikipedia is, and based on the evidence I'd say that Wiktionary is correct. Esben (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with removal. It's not incorrect in any theological sense, but simply a lazy, self-contradicting use of the word as an intensifier. -LlywelynII (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Comprise

The above comment on 'literally' applies also to 'comprise'. Kaleja 03:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

aught

Surely this only means "nothing" when used with "not", and so doesn't belong on this page? We might as well list "anything" and "anyone" ("Can you see anything/anyone?" — "No, I don't see anything/anyone." = "I see nothing/no one.") if we are to include this word. — Paul G 07:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes- "naught" is the opposite of "aught" and means "nothing". "Aught" is here incorrectly. 86.131.109.133 (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think "aught" is a fair candidate for this list. It can also mean "zero," e.g. "Nineteen-aught-six." Check the second definition here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=aught&x=0&y=0

This. 'Something' but also 'zero' (but not 'nothing' generally.) -LlywelynII (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Incomparable

The entry for 'incomparable' was previously removed by Philopedia with the following comment:

I think entry mistaken. "Incomparable" in mathematics is used for objects of different types (e.g. apples and oranges) which cannot be compared. Pls provide reference if you have a dissenting view!

The standard example would be a lattice, where greater than is taken to mean containing. The two elements of the set $\{\{1\},\{2\}\}$ are incomparable since neither contains the other. Here are lots more examples of antichains (sets of incomparable elements): http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Antichain.html Aquae 22:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hardly

"Hardly" never means "harshly"- it only ever means "barely". 86.131.109.133 (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The adverbial sense of "forcefully" is "hard", not "hardly" (as in "the boxer hit his opponent hard". — Paul G (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not agree. Today heard on NPR a discussion of current (2009) recession, speaker said "the recession has hit Africans particluarly hardly" and in fact, Websters 10th (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary TENTH EDITION, p. 529-530) contains:

"hardly adv 1 : with force: VIGOROUSLY 2: in a severe manner: HARSHLY 3: with difficulty : PAINFULLY 4 a -- used to emphasize a minimal amount b-- used to soften a negative"

There is more, plus a usage note. But none of it refutes the use of "hardly" as an adverb meaning severe or harsh. (The Tenth contains the use of "hard" as an adverb as well, but that has no bearing on whether or not "hardly" is an autoantonym.)

So it is clear that the person who wrote "'Hardly ' never means 'harshly'" is simply giving an opinion. I would say NPOV and the authority of Merriam Webster's rules and I have reverted the example of "hardly". ([[User roricka: 02:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roricka (talk • contribs)

It's not an opinion. It's his knowledge of the language. Other dictionaries append rarely or obscure to the 'harshly' usage. As long as we similarly note that it's a very uncommon usage, I'm fine with that, but it does somewhat vitiate the point of including the word on a list such as this. -LlywelynII (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Secreted

These are actually two different words spelled the same but pronounced differently (in my Californian English, at least), so I don't think they really qualify. I would say "SEEK-rit-id" for the sense of hiding something and "see-KREET-id" for the sense of oozing something. Yet, I'm not a big Wikipedia type, so I'm posting this here rather than changing anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.121.175 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a better entry would be "secretion" which I believe is pronounced the same either way. 198.99.123.63 (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"The secretion of the bottle kept it safe from the souse?" It would be pronounced the same, except it only has the one meaning. -LlywelynII (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Stain

Both definitions mean "to color something". The fact that an action may be either desirable or undesirable does not make it self-contradictory. Therefore I removed it. 131.215.220.112 04:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)thiotimoline42

Generally

When is the term generally used to mean "without exception" as opposed to "almost always, with the possibility of exception"?. I always thought it was parallel to "most" or "usually"? 65.42.26.190 (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC) (hooray for ip users)

When mathematicians say "in general", they always mean "in the general case" (that is, "in all cases") not "in most cases", but that's not entirely relevant. According to the OED (second edition), "generally" used to mean "so as to include every individual" (my paraphrasing), but this sense is now obsolete. There is also an obsolete sense of "with few or no exceptions", which shows the transition between the earlier sense and the current one. — Paul G (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer

Admittedly my knowledge of British English is limited, but are members of the peerage actually referred to as peers by persons of lower social status? If not, then it would not be a contradiction. Also, is it a contradiction that peers can be defined as "those who urinate?" (joke) 65.42.26.190 (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes - note the frequent use of "peers" on House of Lords. --AlexChurchill (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Public

Not a contradiction. At all. Things that are Public (government) are maintained for the usage of the Public (general population). 65.42.26.190 (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad title?

The title of this article is imprecise. It is not the words that contradict themselves, but their meanings. It is not possible to write a contradictory sentence using these words because the words can only have one meaning in any one interpretation of the sentence; that is, the word can't mean both things at once. For example, if I write "I don't like seeded grapes", then I mean either "I don't like grapes that contain seeds" or "I don't like grapes from which the seeds have been removed. The reader might not know which one I meant, but I intended only one meaning. If I meant both, then I would not write that sentence because no one would interpret it as having my intended meaning, namely, "I don't like grapes either with seeds in or without".

So it is perfectly possible to write ambiguous sentences using these words, which is the point of the article. I think a better title for the article would therefore be "List of words with contradictory meanings." Note that there can be no "self-" in this proposed title: the meanings contradict each other, not themselves. — Paul G (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I also think the article would be better called "List of words with contradictory meanings" CallmeNiel (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why was "blow" removed?

I included the word blow on the list and now it's removed. Despite that the word may seem tasteless to some people, the fact still remains that it is a self contradicting word, and removing it from the list doesn't make it any less true.--72.49.184.29 (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Borrow

Asking someone if they will borrow you their rake is not slang. It is ignorance, pure and simple. "Borrow" has no more place in this article than "learn" -- "Teacher, will you learn me to do math?" See the above discussion of "literally"... the word only belongs on this list if both of its contradictory meanings are valid. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that "will you learn me" is not common slang. "Will you borrow me" is, in the US upper Midwest. The article header states outright that a lot of the entries result from slang usage, and this inversion of "borrow" is not unusual at all -- I grew up hearing it, and still do.

I think our differences (and I do have an English degree) stem from a very old, but still ongoing debate: Should grammar be descriptive or prescriptive? The classic contrast is between the AH and the OED -- the OED extensively catalogs "proper" words and their usage, whereas the AH is more concerned with the way words and grammar are actually used in real life. I've always leaned heavily towards the descriptive side -- the English language is constantly changing, and always has been. Also, practicing "proper" grammar can result in very uncommon usages. "With whom did you go to the zoo?" Correct, but if you have an ordinary character use it as dialog, it's going to hit a false note. At any rate, I am hardly ignorant of the English language, and noted that the inverse usage of "borrow" is American slang. Not correct usage, but a common usage. [1] This page says it's native to Wisconsin, again putting its usage in the upper Midwest: [2] To my surprise, it also appears to be part of the common slang of St. Leonard, Montreal's Italian population. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.149.167 (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Borrow" is considered an "ergative" verb in this case. This is non-standard, but English is literally bursting with ergative verbs that are standard. (e.g.: "boil" means to vaporize (The water boils), but also to cause something else to vaporize "The cook boils the water)) To list them all here would be tedious and not in the spirit of the article.24.2.48.202 (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Borrow you their rake" got me thinking...what about rake? That which gathers (a garden rake) or that which spreads (a notorious rake). I know, a bit of a stretch. Just thought the nerds reading the comments might appreciate it.Nycbl1y (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Turn on

This isn't precisely an antonym, but if I "turn on" my girlfriend, we can be doing something exhilarating (sex, drugs, skydiving, etc) or I can lash out in anger over something. The two usages have a faint difference in the emphasis of syllables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.87.245 (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Strike

In baseball "Strike" does not necessarily mean that the batter missed. If the batter hits the ball into foul territory that is counted as a "strike" (but not if the batter has two strikes against him). "Strike" in baseball is closer to the meaning "being removed, or crossed out". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.53.209.32 (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

nonsense

pretty much the entire list is complete rubbish. for instance, 'bound' never means movable, in fact, in the first mentioned usage it means "can not be brought off course", so it has the same meaning, just applied to a future object; or utopia in both senses merely means 'hypothetised but pratically unviable ideal reality' and so does not contradict either. like with 'awesome' and 'cool', they mean the same thing just implied to be negative in one use and positive in the other. if we count words that can be used these two ways, we should add 'masculine' and 'feminine'... and how is 'against the wind' in contradiction to 'against the wall'? it always means leaning or heading towards or in opposite direction of eachother. all these things require very careful wording and crooked thinking to make it appear as opposites, but it's usually just applied to describe the same attribute to differing objects· Lygophile has spoken 19:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Include expressions ?

Is it ok to include auto-antonymous expressions here ? "Could care less" (usually meaning: I don't care at all) is one that comes to mind. Or does this fall into a different linguistic category entirely ? --Pixelpapst (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Malapropism. It should be (however often it isn't) 'couldn't care less.' -114.91.65.107 (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge/redir

Someone just created a redirect for "List of common words that have opposite senses" to this page. In concept that is fine, but we do not want to lose any relevant material on that prior page. Below is the list given there, let's check if there is anything that should be incorporated into this article.LotLE×talk 20:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Eminently ambiguous words.

Even the context does not usually divulge the meaning of the following words, so that their use (in the senses provided) leaves the danger that the word will be interpreted in a sense exactly opposite than intended. Language cannot usually long cope with such stark ambiguity, and usage guides will usually proscribe one of the meanings, usually the one later to develop, as being a corruption.

• seeded: with seeds; without seeds
• to scan: to look through with attention; to look through without attention (latter proscribed)
• impregnable: not enterable; enterable (latter proscribed)
• sanction: to permit; to penalize
• oversight: to look closely at; to fail to see

Words whose meaning is usually clear from context.

The following are words that have some senses which are opposites, but for which the context almost always makes the intended sense clear.

• a bill: a medium of money (a $10 bill); a medium of money owed (a bill for $10)
• to cleave: to join; to separate
• to clip: to cause to be together; to cause to be apart
• to consult: to give advice; to receive advice
• fast: not moving; moving
• fine: not above average; above average
• to hold up: aid; hinder
• to lease: in exchange for money, for a time to give up possession of; to gain possession of
• an oversight: attention; lack of attention
• to put out: cause to exist; cause to cease to exist
• a strike: a hit; a miss
• to wind up: to start; to finish

Some verbs refer either to adding or removing the noun from which they are formed:

• to dust: to remove powder; add powder;
• to seed: to remove seeds; to add seeds
• to skin: to remove skin; to add skin

Original

The two meanings of "original" given are not antonymous. Thus "original" should be removed. Guslacerda (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC);

Transwiki to Wiktionary

This is a great article! It seems better suited to Wiktionary, as it is a list of words rather than a list of articles. Accordingly, I’ve listed it to be transwikied.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Transparent/Clear

What about "transparent" and "clear"? They can both mean either "obvious" or "invisible." They were mentioned as contranyms on NPR's "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.59.211.146 (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Fish fry and Heat sink

I've added these two.

Fish fry can mean the beginning of life for a fish (just after hatching) or the end (when eaten at a fish fry).

Heat sink can refer to an urban heat island (using sink in the sense of a kitchen sink or World Trade Center sink, that which keeps something contained), or an electronic component used to dissipate heat.Nycbl1y (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Tool?

That which is useful (like a hammer) or that which is useless (a corporate tool). Nycbl1y (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)