# Do "autoantonyms" unsettle you? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 6, 2006, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364 "2006-07-06T14:21:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2006, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/21 "2006-07-07T16:31:10Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] Most of these aren’t actually antonyms. [/QUOTE] That list is horrible. I’m relieved that they didn’t include “peruse.” ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2006, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/22 "2006-07-07T17:00:16Z")
A former colleague of mine told me about an incident at a company he used to work for. I can’t speak for the veracity of the story. Boss to middle manager : “I want this issue to be **tabled** ” UK usage of **table:** placed on the agenda for a meeting. US usage of **table:** kept under the table, not talked about. ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2006, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/23 "2006-07-07T17:16:28Z")
A lot of these entries seem very forced, or just bad English. _cite = single out for praise (“cited for bravery”), single out for blame (“citation from the Buildings Dept.”)_ Uh, doesn’t cite in this sense just mean “to single out”? _infer = to take a hint, to hint_ Ugh. _secrete = to extrude, to hide_ These are opposite meanings? ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2006, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/24 "2006-07-07T17:55:20Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] A former colleague of mine told me about an incident at a company he used to work for. I can’t speak for the veracity of the story. Boss to middle manager : “I want this issue to be **tabled** ” UK usage of **table:** placed on the agenda for a meeting. US usage of **table:** kept under the table, not talked about. [/QUOTE] Wha? Speaking as a life-long US resident, I would not have been confused by the boss’s statement in the slightest. The so-called “US usage” isn’t really. “Under the table” would give you that definition, but not “table” by itself. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2006, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/25 "2006-07-07T17:58:00Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] A former colleague of mine told me about an incident at a company he used to work for. I can’t speak for the veracity of the story. Boss to middle manager : “I want this issue to be **tabled** ” UK usage of **table:** placed on the agenda for a meeting. US usage of **table:** kept under the table, not talked about. [/QUOTE] Not under the table as if hiding, but rather set aside on the table to be dealt with later. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2006, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/26 "2006-07-07T18:20:14Z")
[QUOTE=Smeghead] Wha? Speaking as a life-long US resident, I would not have been confused by the boss’s statement in the slightest. The so-called “US usage” isn’t really. “Under the table” would give you that definition, but not “table” by itself. [/QUOTE] **CWG** has corrected my understanding of the US usage of the word. The boss instructed that the matter be “set aside” but the underling brought it up in the next staff meeting. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2006, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/27 "2006-07-10T14:48:26Z")
One word was mistaken for an autoantonym, so official language had to recast it: _inflammable_ meant ‘easily bursts **into flame** ’, and is clearly related to the verb _enflame_. But the Latin prefixe _in-_ can have several different meanings: the intensive prefix of _inflammable_ meaning ‘into’ was mistaken for the more familiar negative prefix _in-_. The concern was that people would think _inflammable_ meant ‘does not to burst into flame’, resulting in fire safety hazards. Then fire safety codes replaced it with the (new?) word _flammable_ as an unambigous warning. _Flammable_ is a made-up English word because in Latin there is no verb \*_flammare_; there’s only the verb _inflammare_ ‘to set on fire’. So in this case, **hawthorne** , simply the appearance of an autoantonym was cause for real concern. That was a good point you made about how unconscious people’s use of language can be… until one begins to examine closely what one is really saying… if Lovecraft had written philological horror fiction as Tolkien wrote philological fantasy, there would have been a book locked away in a cobwebbed cabinet of the Miskatonic University library, darkly whispered about for revealing the hidden contradictions all human language is riddled with, study of which had _driven all linguists who read it stark raving mad_… :eek: From the web page linked in the OP, the explanation of the verb _dust_ is really cool. > [@](#): > > Dust is part of a series of noun-verb conversions related to coverings of things. If the noun gives a covering that is natural to the thing, then the verb means remove the covering. If the covering is imposed, the verb means put the covering on. > > So you get shell an egg, peel a banana, but paint the furniture, wax the floor. > > Dust is interesting because it can go either way: dust the furniture (a sort of natural covering to be removed) vs. dust the crops (put stuff on them that they didn’t have and wouldn’t unless humans put it there). I mentioned this in my English grammar book _Stalking the Wild Verb Phrase._ ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/28 "2006-07-11T06:18:48Z")
I had thought this thread had slipped away without ever quite getting on topic, so thanks for your post **Johanna**. I liked the explanation surrounding _dust_, too; and I hadn’t heard of the story about _flammable_. It makes sense. I also like the irony that underlies people’s understandable but mistaken and futile objection to _literally_ meaning _figuratively_ set out in this Slate piece (that IIRC was linked to here at the time):[ > [@](#): > > [T]he literal meaning of _literal_ would be something like “according to the letter,” but it’s almost never used this way. “He copied the manuscript literally” would be one possible example. So when we use _literally_ to refer to something other than individual letters—to whole words, or to thoughts in general—we are already walking down the figurative path, and if we end up with people eating curry so hot that their mouths are “literally on fire,” how surprised can we be? ]([The trouble with literally.](http://www.slate.com/id/2129105/)) ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/29 "2006-07-11T06:29:15Z")
[QUOTE=Smeghead] This is sort of the opposite, but I’m incredibly annoyed that “flammable” and “inflammable” mean the same thing. [/QUOTE] According to Paul Fussell, “flammable” came about as an intentional response to the fact that too many people incorrectly thought that the first syllable of **in** flammable was a negation. I’m not bothered by autoantonyms when I understand where they come from. British nobles are called “peers” because according to common law they have the right to judged by their “peers”…i.e. other nobles. So in that context it means “equals” too. Cleave (split) and cleave (stick together) are now the same but used to be different. Even today, one is regular and one is irregular. For me, that makes them different words. “Sanction” does bother me. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/30 "2006-07-11T06:39:43Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] I don’t even see the reasoning on how the two listed meanings of “comprise” are particularly different at all, much less antonyms. . [/QUOTE] How can you say that? Break down the following sample: **The sonata comprises several movements.** vs. **The sonata is comprised of several movements.** The first sentence is in active voice and the second is in the passive, without the subject and object being transposed. For any other verb, these two statements would be practically opposite in meaning. I tend to be suspicious of the “comprised of” construction, because I suspect it of being the result of attempted aggrandizement by adding syllables, and also of resulting from confusion between “compose” and “comprise”. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/31 "2006-07-11T14:56:59Z")
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus] Cleave (split) and cleave (stick together) are now the same but used to be different. Even today, one is regular and one is irregular. For me, that makes them different words. [/quote] Good point! We got us a structuralist here. > [@](#): > > “Sanction” does bother me. That’s one of the interesting ones. I think the basic concept is to forbidding you to touch. Arabic has a similar semantic split around the root h-r-m. The Sacred Mosque of Mecca is named al-Masjid al-Harâm. The word _haram_ means ‘sanctuary’ and refers to the three most sacred mosques in Islam, in Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. But the word _harâm_ also means ‘forbidden’ as well as sacred. So nude women, extramarital sex, gay sex, booze, pork, Christmas, atheism, Zionism, satirical cartoons about Prophets—everything that _horrifies and disgusts_ Muslims the most—is also called “_harâm_.” The identical word as the most sacred things in the religion, like the Ka‘bah of Mecca to which they turn in prayer 5 times a day. Drastic a dichotomy as this sounds, it isn’t hard to explain. The old Arabian sanctuaries like the Ka‘bah, which were of the _baetyl_ type common throughout the pagan Middle East, had rules from time immemorial that killing, violence, hunting were forbidden to pilgrims worshiping there. Not even a leaf of a plant is to be destroyed. The Prophet explained the root concept of _harâm_ in a hadith: If your herd grazes near the boundary of a sanctuary (haram\*), if they get too close to it they’ll stray over the edge and violate its sanctity, so keep well away from the edge. The sacredness of these places was ritualized by restricting behavior that was normally permissible—especially fighting, since tribal warfare was endemic in the Arabian Peninsula, the pagan religion there required places of sanctuary where a person could feel safe from attack. This custom was retained in Islam. **Chronos** and **Spectre** , your remarks on “comprise” are particularly accurate in fighting ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/32 "2006-07-11T19:55:36Z")
[QUOTE=Robot Arm] I thought of a double autoantonym:Scale As a verb, it can mean to get on (scale a mountain) or to take off (scale a fish). As a noun, it can mean a sequence (a musical scale) or a single item (being paid scale). [/QUOTE] Nice try, but I don’t quite buy it. The verbs are only opposite by very loose description, and the nouns are actually the same: a pay scale is a sequence of pay rates (varying according to some criteria, such as seniority on the job or type of work performed). In general, it seems most of these are like ‘dust’ and just reflect that there are things you can either put on or take off (e.g. ‘seed’). I do wonder about the evolution of some of them, ‘bolt’ and ‘fast’ for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/33 "2006-07-12T14:55:45Z")
[QUOTE=Quercus] I do wonder about the evolution of some of them, ‘bolt’ and ‘fast’ for instance. [/QUOTE] I think the verb _bolt_ ‘to move suddenly’ means to move like a crossbow bolt. The original meaning of bolt was a rod used for fastening. Then the crossbow was invented and its projectile got the same name because it shot a rod. _Fast_ is the really weird one. Its original meanings all had to do with sticking firmly in place, which includes the verb _to fast_, meaning to stick firmly to the non-eating program. How did it get to mean moving quickly? _Fast_ was an adverb centuries before it became an adjective as we now usually think of it. The _Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology_ says > [@](#): > > adj. > The sense of quick or swift is first recorded in Chaucer’s _Canterbury Tales_ (about 1395); from the earlier adjective sense of quick or vigorous (before 1325, in _Cursor Mundi_) and from the adverb. > > —adv. > The sense of quickly or swiftly is first recorded in 975, in one of the _Exeter Riddles_, and developed from the sense of firmly, strongly, vigorously (as in _run fast_ run with vigor). A similar semantic development occurred in the adjective, based on that in the adverb. So no wonder it’s a puzzle now–it originated in a riddle! ---
**Author:** ![OneCentStamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/13edae/32.png) [@OneCentStamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OneCentStamp)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2006, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/34 "2006-07-13T03:56:31Z")
“Garnish” can mean to add to or to subtract from. When the chef garnishes my steak, that usually doesn’t mean he cuts 20% of it off and eats it himself. Conversely, when the creditors garnish my paycheck, that probably doesn’t mean it comes with a sprig of parsley attractively placed in the center. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2006, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/35 "2006-07-13T10:47:14Z")
**Boned** adj 1: having had the bones removed; “a boneless rib roast”; “a boned (or deboned) fish” [syn: deboned] 2: having bones as specified; “his lanky long-boned body” That one always confuses me. Its often unclear whether the word mean on the bone or filleted. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2006, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/36 "2006-07-13T13:19:25Z")
[QUOTE=Johanna] … if Lovecraft had written philological horror fiction as Tolkien wrote philological fantasy, there would have been a book locked away in a cobwebbed cabinet of the Miskatonic University library, darkly whispered about for revealing the hidden contradictions all human language is riddled with, study of which had _driven all linguists who read it stark raving mad_… :eek: [/QUOTE] Which would, of course, be feigned to have been the \*Necroverbicon \* of the Mad Arab Al-Adad! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/37 "2006-07-14T00:23:20Z")
ROFL, **Poly** , that’s one of the funniest posts ever! 😃 Good thing I was drinking water! ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/38 "2006-07-14T01:23:55Z")
[QUOTE=Smeghead] This is sort of the opposite, but I’m incredibly annoyed that “flammable” and “inflammable” mean the same thing. [/QUOTE] [Darkseid voice] That’s because “flammable” was coined by illiterates. Fear not; once I am God-King of Earth, I shall track down the person or persons responsible for its spread and make them feel my wrath. [/darkseid voice] ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/39 "2006-07-14T04:40:00Z")
It’s suggested above that it was coined **for** illiterates. But it sounds like tossers were involved. I mean, why were they trying to write _inflammable_ as a warning? Presumably because _fire hazard_ didn’t sound sufficiently superior. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364/40 "2006-07-14T11:30:01Z")
[QUOTE=hawthorne] It’s suggested above that it was coined **for** illiterates. [/quote] No reason it can’t be both! 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-autoantonyms-unsettle-you/363364.md?page=3)