# "Peer" is its own antonym?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peer-is-its-own-antonym/532031
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [March 10, 2010, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peer-is-its-own-antonym/532031 "2010-03-10T21:10:50Z")
**Posts on this page:** 11
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Sigmagirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sigmagirl)
#### Post date: [March 11, 2010, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peer-is-its-own-antonym/532031/21 "2010-03-11T13:13:09Z")
You can trim a tree by cutting branches off it, or by putting ornaments on it. Taking off, or adding to.
---
### Author:  [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)
#### Post date: [March 11, 2010, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peer-is-its-own-antonym/532031/22 "2010-03-11T13:29:11Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#):
>
> “Moot” can mean “subject to debate” (“moot court”) or “undebatable” (“moot point”).
Not quite. A moot point is a point no longer worth debating, which isn’t quite the same.
> [@acsenray](#):
>
> That’s a stylistic issue.
I beg to differ, for the same reason you write ‘Their Majesties’ and not ‘Their majesties’.
---
### Author:  [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)
#### Post date: [March 11, 2010, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peer-is-its-own-antonym/532031/23 "2010-03-11T14:39:27Z")
According to Wikipedia, such words are “auto-antonyms” or contronyms, and Wikipedia has a [list](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_auto-antonyms_in_English) of such words (although some only fit the definition loosely).
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [March 11, 2010, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peer-is-its-own-antonym/532031/24 "2010-03-11T15:50:26Z")
> [@Quartz](#):
>
> I beg to differ, for the same reason you write ‘Their Majesties’ and not ‘Their majesties’.
Beg all you want, it remains a style choice and one that I choose against.
---
### Author:  [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)
#### Post date: [March 11, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peer-is-its-own-antonym/532031/25 "2010-03-11T15:52:09Z")
“Quite” is close: it can mean “definitely and firmly” or “somewhat”.
---
### Author:  [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)
#### Post date: [March 11, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peer-is-its-own-antonym/532031/26 "2010-03-11T17:14:15Z")
> [@Saltire](#):
>
> And not all nobles are Peers. Only Dukes, Duchesses, Princes, Princesses, and the Monarch are Peers, I believe, at least in the English system of nobility.
>
> Being a Peer means you can talk to the Monarch as if you are their equal, in theory. In practice, not so much, but more so than anyone else in the realm.
>
> There have been periods in English history where the Monarch was arguably less powerful than other Peers of the Realm. That was practically the default state in French feudal history.
In the English system, dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts, and barons are all “Peers of the Realm.” In any reference that implies the title is denied to “lesser nobles”, the “lesser nobles” would be baronets, lords of the manor or knights. (I won’t give a specific cite for this; I think Googling “Peer of the Realm” and clicking any of the results will give this answer. Please post any cite that _disagrees_.)
And no British noble is a “peer” of the monarch. Again, I wonder where that idea came from. And while monarchial power waxed and waned in England, the only instances that come to mind where the Monarch was not most powerful are a few cases where he was weak, young, or fighting war.
---
### Author:  [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)
#### Post date: [March 11, 2010, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peer-is-its-own-antonym/532031/27 "2010-03-11T17:35:45Z")
And if you count homonyms: raze and raise.
---
### Author:  [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)
#### Post date: [March 11, 2010, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peer-is-its-own-antonym/532031/28 "2010-03-11T18:22:09Z")
I don’t know if I’ve ever read a thread in which more posters apparently haven’t.
---
### Author:  [@Fastidiots](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fastidiots)
#### Post date: [March 11, 2010, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peer-is-its-own-antonym/532031/29 "2010-03-11T18:38:21Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#):
>
> I don’t know if I’ve ever read a thread in which more posters apparently haven’t.
Thank you for confirming my sanity. I nearly convinced myself that I was missing something.
---
### Author:  [@robardin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robardin)
#### Post date: [March 11, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peer-is-its-own-antonym/532031/30 "2010-03-11T19:34:20Z")
There are some words that are their own antonyms, and other pairs of words that look like antonyms but are actually synonyms.
To quote Dr. Nick Riviera, after lighting a cigarette in a bad location: “IN-flammable means the same thing as flammable? What a country!”
---
### Author:  [@RedSwinglineOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedSwinglineOne)
#### Post date: [March 11, 2010, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peer-is-its-own-antonym/532031/31 "2010-03-11T19:35:50Z")
And a newly added member of the list.
Literally-1 : in a literal sense or manner : actually
Literally-2 : in effect : virtually
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peer-is-its-own-antonym/532031.md?page=1)