“Anxious,” in many cases, since it often means “eager”
I don’t know that this word has “come to” mean something opposite of what it originally did. Rather, like “cleave,” it can have two completely opposite meanings when used in this context:
“It’s all downhill from here” – which can either mean it’ll be easy going from now on, or can mean that things will rapidly turn to shit from this point forward.
There was a Saturday Night Live sketch quite a few years ago that used both this and several other dual-meaning phrases to comic effect. Unfortunately, I’m not remembering what the others were.
There’s a lot of words that have their own opposites. Clip, before, hew, off, scan, several, unbending and so on.
Ooo, that’s a good one.
It minds me of manure, which comes from the same source and originally also meant work done by hand, but came to just mean shit. Which reminds me of shit, feces, which by simple logical extension came to mean something that is bad: “That car is shit.” But if you say something is the shit, that means it’s good. Exactly the opposite meaning, just by adding the definite article.
Weirdly, “scan” has undergone almost exactly the same shift in meaning.
“Prevent” started out as meaning “get there first” (praevenire) with no sense of stopping something from happening.
If you table a bill in Parliament, you are proposing it for consideration. If, in a public meeting, a resolution is tabled, it is postponed from consideration.
Scruples.
That Shaft is one bad mother…
‘Nervous’ once meant sinewy, brawny, strong. Now it means anxious, timid, jumpy.
Nauseous has changed its meaning over the years. It doesn’t quite mean the opposite of what it used to, but according to the old meaning if I am nauseous then I will (probably) make **you **nauseated (e.g. if I have a particularly grotesque zit on the end of my nose I might be nauseous and make you nauseated).
Churchill mentions in his WWII memoirs that the American usage of “table” as a verb differs from the British usage, along the lines matt mentions. There was a meeting of high-ranking military officers from the US and the UK, and there was a specific proposal under consideration. The British officers suggested that the proposal be tabled (i.e. - they thought it was a good proposal that warranted further discussion and possibly action). The American officers got upset by the British motion, because they also thought it was a good proposal, and couldn’t understand why the British officers were proposing that it be put off indefinitely. There was some heated discussion, until it dawned on them that they all agreed that the proposal had merits and should be discussed - they were just fighting over the different meanings of “table”. :smack:
“Two nations divided by a common language.”
Wikipedia’s list of contranyms, there are quite a few.
“Purchase” originally meant “pursue.” Then it meant “to seize by forceful means” (such as booty in wartime). Now it means “to obtain in a commercial transaction in exchange for legal tender.” (It also means “to maintain a position by use of force.”)
“Could.”
As in “I could care less,” meaning “I couldn’t care less.” I remember when it was said sarcastically, sometime in the 60s or 70s. Now it’s said as a simple statement.
I really did mean I was speaking literally 
My apologies for giving up on this but it it seems like to much circular arguing to me. I still feel when someone uses literally as an intensifier they are using it incorrectly and it means the opposite of what they are saying.
As far as I know ‘literally’ is the only word we have that means ‘I am not using hyperbole’ and we have thousands of other words that can be used as hyperbole, so I feel justified in being annoyed at it’s misuse.
The OED has “a child of either sex; a young person” as the first (meaning oldest, not commonest) meaning, with cites from 1300, and notes that it was used “chiefly in pl.”. The last cite is from 1475.
It notes the female sense of girl with cites from 1375, and suggests that ‘gay girl’ (and ‘little girl’) are elaborations of this sense.
That is fair enough. The point I (and I think the others who piled in on this) was making was that “literally” is never, in fact, used to mean “figuratively” (its opposite). It is used as a general purpose intensifier.
That is not to say that there is not a real problem with the intensificatory use of “literally.” This is because the word is still widely used in its original sense, and it is likely to continue to be so used (because, as Anachronism says, there is really no alternative). When, as is often the case, “literally” is used to intensify a figurative expression, it introduces a real possibility of ambiguity. Usually you can tell by context, but there are cases when it can be hard to tell whether we have a hyperbolic figure being intensified to make it even more hyperbolic, or whether it really is meant literally. Sometimes people will say “literally literally” to clarify this point, but it hardly seems very satisfactory (and I suspect “literally literally” is already begining to take on an intensifier sense itself).
So, by all means feel free to complain about the intensifier sense of “literally” as potential degradation of the language. Prescriptivism does have its place. But please, people, stop saying that “literally” is used to mean “figuratively.” That is not true, and the joke (that some people do not even seem to realize is a joke) has now become very stale and boring.
UDS: Yes i checked the OED myself, and you and mittu are right. It mentions “knave girl” for “boy” also. Weird.
I agree. “Literally,” when used in that manner, does not mean “figuratively.” It’s a deliberate overstatement that, with the aid of context, is understood as a hyperbolic/intensifier. “I could figuratively eat a horse” just doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it? By calling attention to the overstatement, you’re diminishing its rhetorical impact.
Different meaning, yes . . . but opposite? :dubious: