# Are there any words that have come to mean the exact opposite of their original meaning? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 26, 2010, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624 "2010-06-26T21:03:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![mittu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@mittu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mittu)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/41 "2010-06-27T00:25:10Z")
No discussion of the usage of the word ‘literally’ would be complete without a link to the [xkcd](http://xkcd.com/725/) comic. I don’t think the word ‘gay’ would count as ‘happy’ is not the opposite of ‘homosexual’, in fact a lot of homosexual people seem quite pleased about it! Also not quite filling the OP requirements but worthy of note is the fact (according to Q.I.) that boys used to be called girls. Specifically boys would be called ‘knave girls’ and girls would be called ‘gay girls’. The word ‘boy’ originally meaning a servant. ETA: I have only ever heard ‘bemused’ to mean the same as ‘confused’. You would get a bemused look from me if you used it to mean amused. ---
**Author:** ![newme](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e0b2c6/32.png) [@newme](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newme)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/42 "2010-06-27T00:42:00Z")
“With” In Old English, the meaning of the word was “against, in opposition to.” It is a cognate of the German word _wieder_. It retains this original meaning in the compound word _withstand_. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/43 "2010-06-27T00:50:56Z")
> [@mittu](#): > > ETA: I have only ever heard ‘bemused’ to mean the same as ‘confused’. You would get a bemused look from me if you used it to mean amused. It seems in my experience to mean what one feels when someone else does something amusingly confusing. So for example if someone says something then later contradicts themselves for entirely self serving reasons, you might say “I am bemused by your most recent statement, ten minutes ago you were saying the exact opposite”. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/44 "2010-06-27T01:05:36Z")
> [@Anachronism](#): > > If some one says ‘I literally jumped a mile’ but they really mean ‘I figuratively jumped a mile’ it doesn’t work? No. The (intended, and usually perfectly well understood) meaning of the first sentence is _not_ the same as the meaning of the second. In the first case, “literally” is being used figuratively (note, being used figuratively is _not_ the same as being used _to mean_ “figuratively”) to act as intensifier. In the second case, “figuratively” acts as a ‘de-intensifier’.\* The second statement is _much_ weaker than the first (with just “I jumped a mile,” somewhere in between). Although “literally” is often used in this intensifying way with figurative expressions, it is _not_ being used to call attention to their figurativeness (as “figuratively” always does). Indeed, it can perfectly well be used in this way with quite literal descriptions. If someone says “It was literally enormous,” they certainly do not mean “It was figuratively enormous.” Neither, however, are they using “literally” for it’s original purpose: to disambiguate expressions that might otherwise be mistakenly taken as figurative. There is no risk of such confusion over the word “enormous” here. “Literally” is being used as an intensifier, as in the first case. It is true that “literally” has acquired a colloquial secondary meaning, its intensifying function, that sometimes, when it is used together with figurative expressions, seems at odds with original (and still active) meaning. However, that secondary meaning is _not_ equivalent to “figuratively” (i.e., the opposite of “literally” in its original sense), it is equivalent to something like “very, very much.”\*\* To say that “literally” has come to mean “figuratively” is a witty way of remarking on the paradoxical ambiguity that some uses of “literally” can give rise to (at least, it was witty the first few thousand times it was said). But wit is no guarantee of truth, and in this case it is simply serving to promulgate a falsehood. \*That may not be a real word, but you know what I mean. \*\*The fact that I cannot think of an entirely satisfactory paraphrase, that will work in all contexts, rather nicely demonstrates why the language actually needs a word with the intensifying function that "literally’ has in its secondary sense. ---
**Author:** ![heathen\_earthling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/13edae/32.png) [@heathen\_earthling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heathen_earthling)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/45 "2010-06-27T01:08:04Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Cleave. It’s actually a weird one because it means both to split apart and stick together. I’ve heard of this, but I don’t think I’ve ever encountered the “stick together” meaning. Is it only for a specific context or something? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/46 "2010-06-27T01:14:26Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > To say “literally” when they mean exactly the opposite of literally, ie it didn’t really happen they’re just saying it that way to make a point, then it is the opposite. I don’t think you’ve got the point being made, yet. The current common usage is not using “literally” to mean its opposite (ie figuratively) it is using “literally” as a means of emphasising a simile. It is used to suggest that the simile is close to not being a simile but actually being comparable to the subject. Examples with explanation of what is being implied in each case: 1 Simple simile: “I saw a mouse as big as a house” [meaning: it was a big mouse, but of course you know that I’m making a simile because mice don’t get as big as houses] 2 Emphasised simile: “I saw a mouse that was literally as big as a house” [meaning: it a big mouse, but of course you know that I’m using a simile because mice don’t get as big as houses, but I’m really emphasising how much like the size of a house it was by pretending that it actually was the size of a house, although it wasn’t] 3 Simile with explicit recognition that it is a simile: “I saw a mouse that was figuratively as big as a house” [meaning: it was a big mouse, but I’m explicitly letting you know that I am using a simile and that it wasn’t as big as a house] If people meant the opposite of “literally” in this context, then the implication in examples 2 and 3 above would be the same, but it is not. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/47 "2010-06-27T01:22:12Z")
> [@mittu](#): > > Also not quite filling the OP requirements but worthy of note is the fact (according to Q.I.) that boys used to be called girls. Specifically boys would be called ‘knave girls’ and girls would be called ‘gay girls’. Wow that _is_ confusing, especially as, these days, gay girls tend to be the ones who are more likely to be more like boys. 😛 (I am not sure I believe it, though. I would like to see a proper cite.) > [@mittu](#): > > I have only ever heard ‘bemused’ to mean the same as ‘confused’. You would get a bemused look from me if you used it to mean amused. I agree. I think that using “bemused” to mean “amused” still falls into the category of _stupid mistake_ rather than _evolution of the language_. I suppose you never can tell, but I don’t see much sign that it is likely to become entrenched. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/48 "2010-06-27T01:26:34Z")
> [@heathen\_earthling](#): > > I’ve heard of this, but I don’t think I’ve ever encountered the “stick together” meaning. Is it only for a specific context or something? Not really. It’s just becoming archaic if it’s not already. Really both uses are pretty archaic with the coming apart meaning only showing up in cleaving something in twain and cloven hoof but you can cleave to a person or idea to mean that you stick closely to it. > [@newme](#): > > “With” > In Old English, the meaning of the word was “against, in opposition to.” It is a cognate of the German word _wieder_. It retains this original meaning in the compound word _withstand_. I fight with Janie. I fight with Janie against Derek. I like with. It’s schizophrenic or something. Sanction means to permit or to forbid. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/49 "2010-06-27T01:31:09Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I don’t think you’ve got the point being made, yet. The current common usage is not using “literally” to mean its opposite (ie figuratively) it is using “literally” as a means of emphasising a simile. It is used to suggest that the simile is close to not being a simile but actually being comparable to the subject. > > Examples with explanation of what is being implied in each case: > > 1 Simple simile: “I saw a mouse as big as a house” > [meaning: it was a big mouse, but of course you know that I’m making a simile because mice don’t get as big as houses] > > 2 Emphasised simile: “I saw a mouse that was literally as big as a house” [meaning: it a big mouse, but of course you know that I’m using a simile because mice don’t get as big as houses, but I’m really emphasising how much like the size of a house it was by pretending that it actually was the size of a house, although it wasn’t] Agreed, and it really burns me up when people complain about this. I mean, folks, you’re seriously getting your panties in a twist over nothing, here. You know what folks mean. It’s literally mickey mouse stuff. For example, you probably know that “literally,” “really,” and “seriously” in the above paragraph all fulfill the same function. They’re practically synonyms. But it’s trendy for people with a modicum of understanding of grammar to engage in recreational outrage over “literally,” whereas nobody would consider engaging in RO over “really” or “seriously.” ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/50 "2010-06-27T01:34:04Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > If someone says “it took literally forever for me to get out of that traffic jam”, how could the term literally possibly be correct there? Because it’s a figure of speech, an emphatic, a form of hyperbole. It’s not meant to be taken, you know, literally. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/51 "2010-06-27T02:00:24Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > And as “terrific” went one way, it waved to “awful” going the other. There’s a very old hymn that begins “Before Jehovah’s awful throne…” – meaning, roughly, “awe-inspiring” in modern terms. Similarly, “terrible” used to mean “awe-inspiring” and now means, well, _awful_. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/52 "2010-06-27T02:01:48Z")
> [@Anachronism](#): > > 😕 I have heard literally 😃 tons of people use the word literally when they are speaking figuratively. But that actually _ **works** _, though, because if you assume that each person weighs a mere 100 lbs, that comes out to 20 people = 1 ton of people. “Literally” _ **tons** _ of people could still easily be less than 100 people. Just speaking both “literally” and “figuratively”, here, of course… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![KinkiNipponTourist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e9bcb4/32.png) [@KinkiNipponTourist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KinkiNipponTourist)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/53 "2010-06-27T02:26:32Z")
> [@heathen\_earthling](#): > > I’ve heard of this, but I don’t think I’ve ever encountered the “stick together” meaning. Is it only for a specific context or something? Apologies in advance for not taking tons of time to look this one up, but I remember cleave as being used in the Bible, as a man cleaving to his wife (coming together–ahh, inadvertent rimshot). > **[Mark 10:7 - Teachings about Divorce](https://biblehub.com/mark/10-7.htm)** > > For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, Not quite ‘stick together’ perhaps, but closer than ‘coming apart.’ ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/54 "2010-06-27T02:27:18Z")
> [@heathen\_earthling](#): > > I’ve heard of this, but I don’t think I’ve ever encountered the “stick together” meaning. Is it only for a specific context or something? You were looking for usage of “Cleave” to mean “stick together”? Marriage ceremonies, under several different religious sects (mostly Christian, but I’ve heard it in other religions, in weddings I have attended): Officiant: [do you, asshole, promise to] **cleave** unto each other, until death do you part? Respondent: I do. QED. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/55 "2010-06-27T02:35:44Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > For example, you probably know that “literally,” “really,” and “seriously” in the above paragraph all fulfill the same function. They’re practically synonyms. But it’s trendy for people with a modicum of understanding of grammar to engage in recreational outrage over “literally,” whereas nobody would consider engaging in RO over “really” or “seriously.” Actually it irritates me. I just posted what I did to explain that while the current trend in usage of “literally” is in one sense wrong, it is not being used as an _opposite_. It doesn’t irritate me _much_ because I know that language changes over time and “literally” will just slowly come to mean something other than what it meant about ten years ago, but it does irritate me a little (same as those Og damned kids on my lawn irritate me). ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/56 "2010-06-27T02:43:45Z")
“Manufacture” originally meant “to make by hand,” and now is almost always used to mean to make through an industrial or automated process. “Nice” has actually had quite a lot of different definitions. “Bravado” means both ostentatious bravery and totally false bravery, and in fact can mean both at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/57 "2010-06-27T03:15:15Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > It doesn’t irritate me _much_ because I know that language changes over time and “literally” will just slowly come to mean something other than what it meant about ten years ago, but it does irritate me a little (same as those Og damned kids on my lawn irritate me). Fair enough–and if I’m being perfectly honest, the motive other people have for pointing out the incorrectness of “literally” used as an intensifier is pretty much the same motive I have for pointing out that there’s nothing remotely wrong about it. Both of us are probably motivated by a sense of linguistic superiority, which is a pretty irritating motive :). ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/58 "2010-06-27T03:26:48Z")
There’s a funny scene in “How I Met Your Mother” where everybody talks about odd habits that others have that really torque them out once they notice it. Ted’s is how people say “Literally” when the correct word would be “Figuratively”. It turns out that Robin’s berzerk button in regards to Ted is his complaining about people mixing Literally and Figuratively mixed up. I can’t find a Youtube link, but the resulting conversation goes as such: “Ted, I LITERALLY want to rip your head off right now!” “See, that’s what I’m talking about, you don’t LITERALLY want to rip my head off!” “YES I DO!” ---
**Author:** ![panamajack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@panamajack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panamajack)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/59 "2010-06-27T03:35:49Z")
There’s a good article on ‘literally’ [at Slate.com](http://www.slate.com/id/2129105/), tracing its use as an intensifier back a few centuries. ‘Peruse’ formerly meant ‘to use up completely’ or ‘to read carefully’ (They may not necessarily be related, but the first no doubt influenced the second). Nowadays it usually means ‘to read casually or cursorlly’. ---
**Author:** ![Ellis\_Aponte\_Jr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@Ellis\_Aponte\_Jr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ellis_Aponte_Jr)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624/60 "2010-06-27T04:29:57Z")
“Sanction” “Table,” as a verb… does it mean to put something up for consideration or to disregard it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-words-that-have-come-to-mean-the-exact-opposite-of-their-original-meaning/544624.md?page=4)