Similar to this, but not exactly a change to an opposite meaning is fabulous. Originally it meant “something from fables or fantastic stories”. Now, of course, it means more or less the same as ‘terrific’.
Lewis Carroll uses it in its original meaning in Through the Lookingglass where he has the unicorn call Alice a “fabulous monster” (little girls were only found in fables in his universe). I’ve always assumed he was making a comment on the two meanings of ‘fabulous’ but I don’t know when the word acquired its new meaning.
BTW, this subject reminds me of this puzzle: Take two words that are synonyms and add the same suffix to each and get antonyms. There’s actually two answers, one that the person proposing it had in mind and one that I came up with. Perhaps you can come up with additional answers.
The intended answer was jail and prison with the suffix -er. My answer was wonder and awe with the suffix -ful
But that’s an old word originally used when the industrial production of many goods wasn’t possible, so there could be no possibility of confusion. Very similar to the way in which “computer” originally meant a person but now very much does not.
And “awful” is a nice complement to the other words listed here.
I compliment you on including it; as per Polycarp, it’s the best example, I think, for what the OP is looking for and is essentially never used with its original meaning in mind.
I believe this word has enjoyed (or maybe suffered) some “grade inflation”.
Par now means something like “the expected average”.
Far enough back I believe “bogey” was the average that everyone shot for, and the today’s “par” was yesterday’s “birdy”
(I have heard “bogey” used to mean a “target”, which would be consistent with that. Example; setting a target cost for a product.)
Any golf historians out there?
Merriam Webster seems to agree;
3\ˈbō-gē\ a chiefly British : an average golfer’s score used as a standard for a particular hole or course b : one stroke over par on a hole in golf
4\ˈbō-gē\ : a numerical standard of performance set up as a mark to be aimed at especially in competition
Not quite. Nice originally meant ignorant (from the Latin “nescious”, one who doesn’t know [Jack]). A nice distinction was the kind of distinction made by somebody who had no idea what he was talking about.
In a way, the modern and dismissive “yes, yes, that’s very nice Bob, now as I was saying…” calls back to that original meaning : STFU.
In an old movie (50’s vintage maybe?) a woman remarks ‘what a cunning child’ about a little girl she sees. I had to look it up in a dictionary… it means a pretty child, but I doubt anyone uses cunning in that sense anymore.
It’s still meant sarcastically, even if the speakers are unaware of it. I suppose one might think it doesn’t count if the speaker is unaware of the sarcasm, but any use of the phrase tends to pour derision (which looks like it should mean “away from laughter” or similar?) on the subject no one cares about.
–
Slight derail, but this thread and the above comment reminds me of what might have been a joke, but I can’t remember if it’s based on an actual incident.
A linguistic professor mentions to his class how many languages use a double negative (ne…pas in French for example) as a regular negative, but in English and other languages a double negative generally means a positive (colloquialisms excluded). He points out however, that no language uses a double positive to mean a negative. Just then a student pops up, “Yeah, right.”
–
Terrible probably meant something different in the Battle Hymn of the Republic, “terrible swift sword”. The meaning now is probably terrifying, something quite different and on the complete other end of the spectrum, although not really opposite.
I once asked a friend who is a bit smarter (or at least, much better educated) than I am what the difference between Sarcasm and Irony is. She told me that Sarcasm is basically the most common way to indicate Irony. Not the same thing, but closely correlated (kinda like how smoke and heat aren’t fire, but they usually tell you fire is nearby).
The point I’m meandering towards is that if the person isn’t aware of it, they’re probably not being sarcastic. That said, they probably ARE being ironic, and being unwittingly ironic at that.
Sarcasm is using unbelievable ideas for the purpose of mockery. If someone is upbraiding you, and you retort, “I’m not a mind reader, okay?” it’s sarcastic, but it’s not ironic (because you aren’t a mind reader).
If you had said, “Right, I totally knew that because I’m a mind reader,” that’s both sarcasm and irony.
On the other hand, if you say, “You know who I hate? Negative people,” that’s ironic (you’re saying you hate yourself, either unawares or as a joke), but it’s not sarcastic.
Perhaps not a situation (although you could engineer one), although it’s certainly possible to make ironic *statements *(whether sarcastic or non-sarcastic) or take ironic actions on purpose.
You weren’t responding to me, but yes, I hear people saying the word “literally” in precisely the same places and contexts where “figuratively” should be implied, if not actually spoken.
For example, this line on the Spanish national football team,
No, they are not literally surgical. That’s a metaphor. A figure of speech.
Oh, but the best current usages of “fabulous” still mean fantastic (as in fantasy). “Terrific,” on the other hand, no longer connotes terror at all; even the more prosaic use which conveyed bigness and loudness (“a terrific explosion”) has now largely passed.
Possible – in the sense if conceivable – but not common. In most situations in which a person would be aware of the irony of his statement, that very awareness would drain the statement of it’s irony.
If you’re talking about a statement that merely recognizes or calls attention to the irony of a situation souls rarely if ever itself be ironic, although it again is conceivable.
