Are there any words that have come to mean the exact opposite of their original meaning?

Factual Questions
41

No discussion of the usage of the word ‘literally’ would be complete without a link to the xkcd 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.

42

“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.

43

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”.

44

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.

45

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?

46

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.

47

Wow that is confusing, especially as, these days, gay girls tend to be the ones who are more likely to be more like boys. :stuck_out_tongue:

(I am not sure I believe it, though. I would like to see a proper cite.)

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.

48

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.

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.

49

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.”

50

Because it’s a figure of speech, an emphatic, a form of hyperbole. It’s not meant to be taken, you know, literally.

51

Similarly, “terrible” used to mean “awe-inspiring” and now means, well, awful.

:stuck_out_tongue:

52

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… :smiley:

53

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).

Not quite ‘stick together’ perhaps, but closer than ‘coming apart.’

54

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. :smiley:

55

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).

56

“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.

57

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 :).

58

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!”

59

There’s a good article on ‘literally’ at Slate.com, 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’.

60

“Sanction”

“Table,” as a verb… does it mean to put something up for consideration or to disregard it?