Talk:Contronym/Archive 1

Note

Section added. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that the most popular search result on Google for contronyms [1] lists words that are only marginally contronyms and shouldn't be included in this list. It will be better to keep this list pure.

Wiktionary?

Section added. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else think the list of contronyms should go to wictionary instead of wikipedia? --65.27.70.55 22:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed – I’ve listed List of auto-antonyms in English to be transwikied, as it is a list of words, not a list of articles.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Inflammable?

Section added. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when can inflammable mean not flammable? KorbenDirewolf 07:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a misunderstanding, which is why (and because!) flammable was invented as a synonym of inflammable which created much confusion. The article says ("in-" functioning as an intensifer). I think it's not an intensifier but the Latin prefix in- in īnflammō meaning just that, in, as in setting aflame = into flames. The confusion is between the two meanings of Latin in-: "in/into" vs "not". --188.106.69.50 (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Another contranym

I think "meek" is also a contranym.

Merriam-Webster defines it as: 1 : enduring injury with patience and without resentment 2 : deficient in spirit and courage

I would say that enduring injury with patience and without resentment takes enormous courage and spirit. This may be POV but I think it is still worth mentioning. What do you folks think?

--Cfwschmidt 01:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Although Merriam-Webster is a single reliable source, there are many uses for the word "meek". Essentially, meek means to be mild; enduring insult or injury without objection; seeming to accept wrongs, poor treatment or bad luck without complaint.

The contrast between "courage", and "meek" changes within culture and time. An example would be Ghandi in the 1940's in India. Another could be straight out of fiction with Superman and Clark Kent; they really are one, but Clark Kent SEEMS to lack courage, so that the culture he exists in will not suppose he is the superhero associated with courageous action. Seeming doesn't make it so. Meek need not be a deficiency in either spirit or courage, but just part of the way courage (taking action against wrong while being afraid) manifests.

I'm looking for a verification that the word blue blongs on this page.

1. adj. Strict moral code. (eg: Blue Laws)

2. adj. Pornography, foul language, etc. (ie: blue films, blue joke)

note: infalmmable should be removed or edited to explain why it's is not an acronym of itself. (See Usage Note)

Interesting what we can discover by putting our minds together. The suggestions above are impressive and tantalisingly close (at least) to qualifying as contronyms. Here is another I just thought of: oversight, as in 1) He has the oversight for the family taxes (=responsibility for). 2) He neglected to do the taxes. It was an oversight (=failed in responsibility, due to losing from view). Comments?

--Philopedia 13:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think passion is close, in a way, though I realize there is not a strict antithetical relationship. A passion for life is a full embrace of the beauty and goodness of life, but passion means to suffer with, which is in the ballpark of an opposite meaning. MotherFunctor 00:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As for "oversight", is "oversight" as used on Wikipedia notable enough as yet a third meaning? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if it were, it is not the opposite of either of the other two. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC).

Does a section on phrases belong? (To hold, for example, "hold up" as in "detain/delay" versus "support/enable.")

Trivial?

What about trivial? It can either be dismissable, unimportant, but in a more formal or mathematical context it can be essential to, for instance, a recursive function's definition... Wouter Lievens

Hi Wouters, I studied mathematics, but just at the moment, I can't place your reference for a mathematical use of trival. How about an example? Thanks --Philopedia 13:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In mathematics trivial is usually used to either mean obvious, the proof is trivial, or meeting a definition trivially, but of little interest or consequence, as in the trivial group is a group with one element, the trivial topology is the set {X,{}}. It's meaning is very close to our common usage of trivial. MotherFunctor 00:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It goes back to Trivium (education in the three most basic subjects). Hence the idea of "so simple a year-one student could do it unaided". 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:25C7:3665:6489:7698 (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Contronym vs. Auto-Antonym

I propose that the name of this entry be changed to "Contronym" in order to reflect the most commonly used spelling of this language game.

The word contronym was coined in 1962 by Jack Herring for a language game. Contronyms were the subject of an article by Richard Lederer in Word Ways in February 1978. David Morice coined the word pseudo-contronym in 1987 for a similar language game.

• contronym — a word which can be used in two contradictory senses: a language game. Compare antagonym, autantonym, heteronym, and homonym. See also pseudo-contronym. [Herring; Lederer/1]

• pseudo-contronym — a word which, when modified, can be used in two contradictory senses (e.g., unit = one thing; but un-it = not a thing): a language game — coined by David Morice. See also contronym. [Morice]

References

• Herring, Jack. Word Study (February 1962).

• Lederer/1 = Lederer, Richard. "Curious Contronyms." Word Ways, 11 (February 1978): 27-28.

• Morice, David. "Kickshaws." Word Ways, 20 (November 1987): 243.

The word contronym is occasionally (and incorrectly) spelled "contranym"; the more historically correct spelling is contronym. The word derives from the Latin contr(a), "against, contrary, in opposition" + -onym; the suffix (nearly) always supersedes the root, so the "a" in contra is dropped to form contronym.

PlaysInPeoria 04:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That a spelling is more historically accurate—where "historically accurate" means nothing more than "closer to the original spelling"—is entirely irrelevant if the currently accepted spelling is different. Our own Wiktionary lists "contronym" as the alternate spelling, as does dictionary.com. At the very least, this page should not list "contranym" as a misspelling. 128.143.97.145 (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And because (1) we don't use our sister projects as references, (2) the OED, which is generally assumed to be a better source than dictionary.com, has as the primary form "contronym" [2] and (3) Google search returns 5 times more hits for "contronym" (153,000 against 29,600), I'll make the appropriate change. --Thrissel (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Auto-Antonym vs. Autantonym

The original spelling of "auto-antonym" (with or without the hypen) was autantonym. It was coined (or perhaps simply reported) by Joseph T. Shipley in 1960.

The original spelling, in which the "o" in auto- was properly dropped, was used in the Dictionary of Language Games, Puzzles, and Amusements in 1986.

• autantonym — word having two opposite meanings (as a fast horse, and a fast color). Cf. contronym, heteronym, and homonym. [Eiss:39; Shipley:74]

References

• Eiss, Harry Edwin. Dictionary of Language Games, Puzzles, and Amusements. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986.

• Shipley, Joseph T. Playing with Words. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1960, p. 74.

PlaysInPeoria 04:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Enantionymy? Antilogy?

What, pray tell, is "antilogy," or, for that matter, "enantionymy"?

The following sentence appears in the article: "This phenomenon is also called 'enantionymy' or 'antilogy.'" With all due respect, if this sentence adds any value to the article, which is questionable, it certainly demands a footnote.

A quick Google search revealed that the terms apparently were coined by Laurence Horn, writing in LINGUIST List. According to LINGUIST List 14.553, Mon Feb 24 2003, Sum: Contrasting senses for 'leave' (edited by Steve Moran), "He [Horn] now prefer to call this phenomenon as 'enantionymy' which he earlier termed as 'antilogy.'"

Let's stick with contronym or perhaps autantonym!

PlaysInPeoria 04:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeking advice: names which describe (or contradict) themselves

I wonder if any of the contributors to this article can advise me on a somewhat related vocabulary curiosum - personal names which either support or contradict themselves. Does the concept sound confusing? It really oughtn't. But rather than striving for a clear and succint definition, I can get the idea across with a very examples that spring immediately to my mind:

William Wordsworth - what better name could a poet ask for?
Edgar Allen Poe - wanted to become a poet, was three quarters of the way there at birth.
Brian Cashman - in charge of player recruitment for the New York Yankees baseball team, a team (I believe) that outspends all other teams combined.
Derek Jeter - Yankee shortstop (Jeter means "to throw")

I think it would be interesting to start a Wiki page for this concept (assuming it doesn't exist already). To start with, perhaps someone could advise on what it's called. (If not yet named, I'd be tempted to call it Icononames.

--Philopedia 10:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Philopedia, the word you are looking for is aptronym, " a name that is aptly suited to its owner", and some of the names you are citing are already listed. Actually, it might help you to take a look at the Wiki article -onym. It gives you all the words with the suffix "-onym". Dieter Simon 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you. Where would I turn if I didn't have the Wiki community of well-educated oddballs like myself?

--Philopedia 15:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

hey there i wuv u —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.128.94 (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

quite?

I've never encountered quite in the "slightly" sense. Every time I've seen it, it's either meant the same as "very", including every example I've seen of the phrase quite nice, or been with not as "not quite", meaning "almost" with negative emphasis. Thus, I'm not sure it really belongs on this page. John Darrow (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC) I agree. I can't see how "quite nice" means "slightly nice".--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's quite common ;) here in the UK to use it in either sense. --jezmck (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Collins Cobuild defines it as 1. Quite means to a fairly great extent or to a greater extent than average: Actually that's quite nice, I like that 2. Quite is used to emphasize the complete degree or extent to which something is true or is the case: I stood quite still. So it is quite a positive statement. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

'Quite' originally meant - and continues to mean - 'completely'. Expressions such as "The door is not quite shut", means the door is still *slightly* open - obviously because it is not fully closed. Some modern usage is entirely ironic - "quite nice", "quite horrible". In such cases it is this overall ironic context that lends the word the additional modern nuance; the meaning of the word itself remains the same, which is quite obvious. Examinator (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but every example being shown is saying it means very and the only example that might mean something else is a negative statement. "not quite shut" does mean "still *slightly* open" but because that definition includes the fact that your using both not and quite to mean it and it isn't the quite alone that's defining the term this example is not quite correct here. we're talking about the supposed self-opposing meanings quite has so if you have to use not to make it mean something else then quite isn't an auto-antonym because quite isn't the same as not quite. now if you could use quite to mean completely or slightly by itself then that would make quite an auto-antonym but so far none of the examples mean that.

quite nice = very nice quite beautiful = very beautiful quite still = very still quite a positive statement = very much a positive statement quite horrible = very horrible quite obvious = very obvious

but that actually brings up a bigger point that many more of the examples of supposed auto-antonyms. Most of those examples have a word with opposing meanings but only if they are used in different parts of speech. like stroke to mean either caress gently or a hard swing. you can't use stroke as a verb to mean hard swing or strike. you can't use a stroke to mean caressing. it is either a verb that means to caress gently or a noun that means a hard strike so it doesn't make sense as an auto-antonym. i mean antonyms are words that oppose each other like day and night. both day and night are nouns that mean opposite things so they are antonyms. you can't say night and shine are antonyms right? you can't say day and blacken are antonyms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.122.165 (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Constituency

In the U.S. terminology a "constituency" can be the interests directing the legal jurisdiction, or the jurisdiction creating the framework underwhich such interests have their orientation. I don't know whether this would be a contra- or auto-anto- or etc, -nym. As they are not opposites generally, but within their own spectrum they contra-pose themselves. Another such political term so confused in the U.S. tense is 'federal', Federalism generally would consider the federal parts the federated contingent parts, but the federal government means not the partitioned government so much, as the overall centralized government when used in U.S. terminology over the member states ('state' itself elsewhere in the world usually meaning the 'whole' of the government rather than any specific parts). There are likely even more true opposing legal or governmental terms than these; as the concepts in law, esp. corporate law, become highly convoluted in such dialectical opposites where rights are concerned. 65.102.40.8 (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

tennis

Game terms are different; such as 'being on par' and par being the amount below in tennis, etc. Other game terms have a desireable word for scoring in one instance being negative in another (of another game usually) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.40.8 (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wink?

I have come across the word "wink" being used to mean both closing and also opening (not necessarily an eye). It is also used to mean closing and opening together as one action. Is it an auto-antonym? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedricthecentaur (talk • contribs) 16:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Proper names

Is it noteworthy to include proper names that happen to be auto-antonyms? Blake: From a surname which was derived from Old English blæc "black" or blāc "pale". [3] samwaltz (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Out"

I'm fairly certain that "out" doesn't mean "shining" in the context given by the article. Rather, in that situation it merely indicates that the stars are visibly present in the sky on that night, "shining" simply being an inherent property of the stars. The fact that I've never heard or seen any other alleged examples of "out" meaning "shining" doesn't help its case very much, either. 67.142.162.27 (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

'English words with uncommon properties' deleted

The page English words with uncommon properties was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English words with uncommon properties. Deletion review is currently under way at Wikipedia:Deletion review#English words with uncommon properties, but pending that discussion the article has no content. I have therefore removed the hatnote from this article redirecting users to that one. Cnilep (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Examples not satisfying the definition

The lead of this article defines contronym as a homograph that is also an antonym. Very few, if any of the examples on the page are antonyms, which requires there be a continuous spectrum from one meaning to the other. So hot and cold can be antonyms because temperature is found on a continuous spectrum but there is no spectrum between permit and prohibit so sanction is not, by this definition, a contronym.
Therefore, either the definition needs to be amended to indicate that true antonymy is not necessary or most of these examples will have to be deleted. Cottonshirtτ 15:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Your definition of antonym is too narrow; it only refers to gradable antonyms. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Aloha

It is only the English translations of this word that are auto-antonymous. In Hawaiian the essential meaning of aloha is "love", and so is appropriate both as a greeting and a farewell, without any actual change in meaning – it is only the occasion that is different. English requires different words for greeting and farewelling, and so translates the Hawaiian word with these opposite terms, but that's a fact about English, not Hawaiian. Koro Neil (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

γεια

It's "γεια", not "γειά". It isn't really an "auto-antonym" because it doesn't mean hello or welcome, nor goodbye. It means "may you have good health" (έχε γεια / υγεία) and it's used both when one arrives or leaves, thus the confusion. http://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/modern_greek/tools/lexica/triantafyllides/search.html?lq=%CE%B3%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%B1&dq= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.237.22.140 (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"To weather"?

Although "To weather" looks like an auto-antonym, I'm not convinced. A weathers B, in both cases (endure and erode), implies that A survives and B doesn't. To put it another way, if the ship doesn't weather (survive) the storm, the storm weathers (breaks up) the ship. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing words from the list

I notice many people on this talk page have suggested words be removed with no feedback, and therefore no action. I'm going to simply remove the words I feel don't belong, and give my reasons for doing so here. It's a wiki; if you disagree strongly, put them back in.

• "Back" can mean "regressive" as in "to go back in time", or it can mean "progressive" as in "to push back a deadline". - Both mean "farther away".
• "Egregious" can mean "very bad" or, in an archaic sense, "very good". - Egregious means "extreme" with "good" or "bad" depending on context. Perhaps both "terrific" and "awful" should be removed for this same reason.
• "To enjoin" can mean "to prohibit, issue injunction" or "to order, command". - Commanding to not do something is still a command.
• "Eponym" can mean "name of a person that has given rise to the name of something" and "word derived from a person's name". - But it's the same name, that's the point.
• "Redundant" can mean "useless" or "extra caution". - Redundant means "more than is needed" which fits both.
• "Unpacked" can refer to a container with objects still in it, or a container with the objects removed. - I could be missing something, but the former usage is completely unknown to me.
• "To weather" can mean "to endure" (as in a storm) or "to erode" (as in a rock). - I agree with the previous commenter.
• "Yield" can mean "to produce" (as in a chemical equation) or "to concede" (as in driving). - Both of these mean to give something up.

--BBrucker2 (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have just done the same as above

• Apropos was listed I think due to the phrase Apropos of nothing - of nothing clearly alters meaning like dis- or un-
• comprise can mean either to be made up of or to make up.-- same meaning different tense -the same thing happening just one is after the ting has happened.

• help listing the phrase can't help or similar -again this phrase form has the negative in it. "can not help" - 'help' still means the same thing as it does in "can help" the word not exists to do this very task its how english works — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitten88.r (talk • contribs) 20:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Bitch?

Bitch can be used to mean an aggressive woman or a submissive/effeminate man. Does this count as a contranym? AwesomenessJunkie (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say so because it often means any submissive person. 149.142.103.47 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Chord

A chord is both a collected group of notes played in unison or separately (ie: an arpeggio) as well as a single string. I'm not sure if this fits the definition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.85.98 (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"All but" doesn't seem to be a good example to me?

The article says: "All but" can mean "except for" or "almost entirely". To me the second example is really the same as the first. If you say "Rome is all but lost", you're saying "Everything on the path towards being lost has happened to Rome, **except** for the final act of actually being lost". So in both cases, "all but x" means "everything except x", with the only slight difference being that in the second example the implication is that the "everything" refers to everything that leads up to x, rather than just everything, period.

I propose that this example be removed, as I don't think it's really an auto-antonym. 118.209.109.42 (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I was just thinking of this as a good example of an auto-antonym. The message is a totally different one if you say something is nearly lost or if something is very far from being lost, or not lost at all. And that is what "all but" does, imply a message about how much of anything something is. Your ideas are probably matching regarding the etymology of the saying, but not regarding the actual meaning. "All but ten" could mean slightly less than ten (all nine and a half, except the full tenth), or much more than ten. --androl (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

To Table

to quote Wikipedia- In parliamentary procedure, a motion to table has two different and contradictory meanings: ... To "put on the table" means to make the issue available for debate ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.103.140 (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

New Suggested Edits

"to fight with"- this is not an auto-antonym but one of the many peculiarities of english prepositional phrases

"to go off"- same argument as above. prepositional phrases are not auto-antonyms. also i would argue the usage of "the alarm will go off" when you mean "the alarm will turn off" (the entry for "off" is a better example of an auto antonym)

"for"- this explanation makes no sense. "taking aspirin for a headache"- in this case 'for' does not mean "against" but rather "used as a function word to indicate purpose" (merriam-webster). therefore it is not an antonym. although 'for' has many usages, none of those usages are opposites of each other.

"to screen"- i agree but this could use further explanation.

"strike" should read: to hit, or as a noun in baseball terms, to miss

Avanineglect (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)avanineglect

The terms "autantonym" and "contronym" were originally coined by Joseph T. Shipley in 1960 and Jack Herring in 1962, respectively. Some pairs of contronyms are true homographs, i.e., distinct words with different etymology which happen to have the same form. For instance cleave "separate" is from Old English clēofan, while cleave "adhere" is from Old English clifian, which was pronounced differently. This is related to false friends, but false friends do not necessarily contradict. Other contronyms are a form of polysemy, but where a single word acquires different and ultimately opposite senses. For instance quite, which meant "clear" or "free" in Middle English, can mean "slightly" (quite nice) or "completely" (quite beautiful). Other examples include sanction — "permit" or "penalize"; bolt (originally from crossbows) — "leave quickly" or "fixed"; fast — "moving rapidly" or "unmoving". Many English examples result from nouns being verbed into distinct senses "add <noun> to" and "remove <noun> from"; e.g. dust, seed, stone (or pit). Some contronyms result from differences in national varieties of English. For example, to table a bill means "to put it up for debate" in British English, while it means "to remove it from debate" in American English. Often, one sense is more obscure or archaic, increasing the danger of misinterpretation when it does occur; for instance, the King James Bible often uses "let" in the sense of "forbid", a meaning which is now obsolete, except in the legal phrase "without let or hindrance" and in tennis, squash and table tennis. An apocryphal story relates how Charles II (or sometimes Queen Anne) described St Paul's Cathedral as "awful, pompous, and artificial", meaning in modern English "awe-inspiring, majestic, and ingeniously designed." Auto-antonyms also exist in other languages. For example, in Latin sacer has the double meaning "sacred, holy" and "accursed, infamous", French hôte may mean either "host" or "guest"; the same is true for the Italian cognate ospite (both deriving from the Latin hospes). Hindi: कल and Urdu: کل‎ (kal [kəl]) may mean either "yesterday" or "tomorrow" (disambiguated by the verb in the sentence). Italian ciao is a greeting that is translated as "hello" or "goodbye" depending on the context, and Swahili verb 'kutoa', meaning both "to remove" and "to add". Sometimes an apparent opposition of senses comes from presuming the point of view of a different language. In Hawaiian, for example, aloha is translated both as “hello” and as “goodbye”, but the essential meaning of the word is “love”, making it appropriate as both greeting and farewell. The meaning is in fact the same; it is only the occasion that is different. Latin altus can be translated "high" or "deep" in English, but in Latin had the single meaning "large in the vertical dimension". The difference in English between "high" and "deep" is determined by the speaker's awareness of their relationship to some perceived norm. A mountain is "high" because it is well above sea level, and the ocean is "deep" because it plunges well below it. Both, however, were altus in Latin. This concept is superficially similar to a few examples in Italian, such as snow, which is described as being "high", [alta], rather than "deep", but this is because it is considered to be heaped above the reference level of the ground, rather than a throwback to Latin. The adjective, "profondo" is used instead to describe the idea of depth below a given reference level, so the sea is "profondo", along with the vast majority of examples in which "deep" would be used in English. In Italian, "alto mare" means not "deep sea" but "high sea", with the same meaning as English of "open water beyond territorial limits". The tide, marea, also follows the same pattern as English, being either "high" or "low", depending on whether it is above or below the mean. However, Italian, French and Spanish all use their own equivalents of "high" to describe cooking pots, frying pans and saucepans which in English would be called "deep". In English, "tall", as a synonym of "high", would only be used to describe a pot when its height is considerably greater than its diameter, and drinking glasses with such proportions are also referred to as "tall" rather than "deep". In addition various neologisms or other such words contain simultaneous opposing meanings when in the same context rather than alternate meanings depending on context, such as coopetition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.239.84 (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

suspect

"To suspect" is not in the list. From Wiktionary:

to suspect the presence of disease: "to suppose the presence of disease"

to suspect the truth of a story: "not to suppose the truth of a story"

can these be interchanged to "to have doubts about the presence of disease" and "to suppose the story to be true"? --androl (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine?

This word depending on usage can mean either "exceptional" or "just barely acceptable". Consider the difference between "This is a fine wine." vs. "This wine is fine." It's not quite the exact opposite, since both are sort of positive terms, but they're definitely at opposite ends of the "good" range at least. Lurlock (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"It was OK" seems to have similarly distinct connotations on either side of the Atlantic. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:25C7:3665:6489:7698 (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Nonplussed?

Virtualistik (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Can mean one is so shocked or confused one doesn't know how to respond to an event or, as per the new definition used in North America, unfazed/unpertrubed. These are essentially opposite meanings. What do you think, would this be a suitable example for the page?

I think this statement in the current version of the entry is misleading at best: "Nonplussed" can mean "baffled" or "perplexed", but in North America can also mean "not disconcerted" or "unperturbed". Sorry, "nonplussed" does not mean "unperturbed"; there are people who use it that way, but those people are called "wrong."--96.245.98.213 (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur. Emphatically. Belastro (talk) 05:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-plussed belongs with uncouth unfazed unkempt to that group of words that is polarised negatively. Which is to say, the terms plussed, couth, and kempt do not occur in normal conversation unless this very concept is being discussed. There are also borderline cases such as undaunted and unleashed. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:25C7:3665:6489:7698 (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Remaining issues

Thanks very much to Quercus solaris for taking the time in to make some needed improvements in the article. I'd like to address some additional concerns. The article still needs sources in some places, such as reliable sources for translations of foreign words to verify that the word is in fact an auto-antonym, and outdated or rare uses of English words. (Note that Wiktionary can't be considered a reliable source.) I'd like to put the "refimprove" tag back. Additionally, I think we should limit the number of examples by requiring new examples either to provide a reliable source that the example is an auto-antonym or to get consensus. I raise this issue because similar articles that were never intended to be lists fell victim to example cruft because lots of people added their favorite examples, which often were based on strained logic or inadequate understanding. For example, look at the histories of Aptronym and Misnomer. I don't intend to remove any of the current examples, but I'd like some limitation on addition of new examples. Sundayclose (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding example cruft, that's fine, although one could also look at it from another angle, which is that Wikipedia has many instances of "List of X", both as sections within articles and as standalone articles spun off (depending on appropriateness in each instance), and many of those are allowed to be exhaustive (or, more accurately, to be perennially building toward exhaustiveness). WP:LISTS is a portal to more info, for anyone interested. So I would say that Wikipedia is allowed to build an exhaustive list of English-language auto-antonyms if any community members want to. But I agree that "strained logic or inadequate understanding" and borderline meeting of criteria ("does this example really meet the definition") are problems when it comes to lists of types of words. I personally don't have any interest in scouring for list items to build an exhaustive list. I'm satisfied with leaving this instance as "good examples only, not exhaustive". Quercus solaris (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

mickey mouse

In Australia the widely used colloquial expression "mickey mouse" can mean either (1) excellent (possibly rhyming slang for "extra grouse" with that exact meaning) or (2) second rate, inferior, half-baked, amateurish, ill thought-out ... you get the picture. Meaning is usually obvious from context or by tone of voice. Not suggesting it's a candidate for inclusion, but would be interesting to know whether either of these meanings is found elsewhere. Doug butler (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The "inferior, rinky-dink" sense of "mickey mouse" is used in the United States as well. Khemehekis (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the primary sense. The full phrase is "Mickey Mouse Operation" and the original image is very specifically that of this particular cartoon. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:25C7:3665:6489:7698 (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Black

How about we have the word "black" listed as a contronym in this article? It can mean either "good for the economy" (as in Black Friday) or "bad for the economy" (as in Black Tuesday). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khemehekis (talk • contribs) 22:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

In both cases, "black" refers to a peak in frantic activity. Good or bad for the economy is beside the point.2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:25C7:3665:6489:7698 (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Even better, "black" used to mean "white"! Its meaning then got transferred to the brightness of fire, and thence to the colour of the charred wood that remains of the fire. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:25C7:3665:6489:7698 (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Moot?

"Moot" originally meant (and still means, in the UK) "debatable". In the US, it means "settled" and so no longer needing to be debated. — 89.197.103.111 (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the North America meaning is not needing to be debated because the result no longer matters, not because it is already settled. Not the same thing, and not really an auto-antonym since the NA question is still debatable, it's just not worth doing. For instance, it's moot whether someone who had a heart attack and then fell into a pool drowned or died from the heart attack. Canada uses both the NA definition and the UK one. Meters (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Semantics

Semantics is an autoantonym, as it can mean both "the study of meaning" and "meaningless distinction".--188.106.69.50 (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Not really. The distinction you draw exists alright, but is more about whether technical debates about word meanings are appropriate given the situation at hand. In the same vein, "sophistry" used to neutrally connote "philosophy" before it came to mean "vacuous and misleading hair-splitting". The word "philosophy" is itself on its way to acquiring a purely negative connotation. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:25C7:3665:6489:7698 (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Take

I'm surprised this one isn't here. On a classic Burns and Allen, which I saw in reruns on PBS, George commented on the flowers Gracie had brought home. Gracie had a friend who was in the hospital said George had suggested she take her flowers. So she did.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't have to do with the verb "take", but is a pronominal ambiguity, as can be seen if you substitute the masculine pronoun: take him flowers ("him" = indirect object) vs. take his flowers ("his" = possessive). For the feminine singular pronoun, the object and possessive forms happen to be identical..; AnonMoos (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Let

Isn’t it rather a case of homonymy? IIRC the two ‘let’s are unrelated historically. Guldrelokk (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Can scale be an auto-autonym?

A few years ago at my dentist's office I realised scale could be an auto-antonym (and finally felt like posting...): it can mean "to remove layers" such as from teeth or "build-up of layers" like limescale found in kettle. Specifically the first defintion, "the removal of calculus and other deposits on the teeth by means of instruments." (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scaling), while the second "is the formation of a solid layer on a surface, which makes heat transfer less easy" (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/scaling). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.56.23.188 (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

"Steep Learning Curve" is an example

@Meters:

You reverted my additional example b/c you didn't know that "a steep learning curve" can mean easy OR hard to learn. Please see this page which explains it:

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/6209/what-is-meant-by-steep-learning-curve

If I don't hear back from you in 30 days, I'll assume you agree or have lost interest, and I'll revert your revision.

Respectfully,

Kieron (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You made a change and within minutes I challenged it. You then waited more than three months before posting the above (in which you make an inappropriate statement about what I know or do not know) and put the onus on me to continue my objection. That's not how it works. You were undone, and it's now up to you to get consensus to include your change. As we say in Learning curve,'The familiar expression "a steep learning curve" is intended to mean that the activity is difficult to learn, although a learning curve with a steep start actually represents rapid progress.' I have no objection to adding the term if it really is an auto-antonym, but in common usage the term is not an auto-antonym. I don't believe that the fact that the expression is used to express the opposite of what it logically should is enough to claim that this is an auto-antonym. We need more than a blog to claim that it is used to mean the opposite as well. Meters (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not an auto-antonym. It does evoke a sense of stark dichotomy (which is why Kieron thinks he is on to something), as can be seen from the phrases we used before "steep learning curve" became the popular cliché: sink-or-swim, make-or-break, do-or-die. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:25C7:3665:6489:7698 (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Twilight

Can refer to both sun-up and sun-down, although modern usage heavily favours the latter. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:25C7:3665:6489:7698 (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Impregnable

does not really mean incapable of getting pregnant, any more than inconceivable does (it is part of a series of words that mean this in the jocular vein; unbearable is another). 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:25C7:3665:6489:7698 (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, that is an official definition of impregnable, at least according to some dictionaries. See the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, for example: "that can be impregnated". Meters (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Endorsement

Endorsement, has two contradictory meanings. Generally it means approval or praise. However, on a UK driving licence it indicates a penalty, literally the driver has broken the law (usually for speeding) and is a bad driver. This leads to the urban myth of a UK driver being stopped for speeding in another country and being let off a fine, for obviously being a model driver, because he has so many endorsements on his licence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:4833:5B00:2DEF:D7DF:76BC:A63D (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Ravel

The verb "ravel" means unravel. 163.1.206.129 (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Yup. This can be sourced to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary which says: "1. entangle ...4. disentangle, unravel" It does not get much clearer than that. I'll add this unless someone objects. Meters (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Oops, very retroactive correction... missed "not" in above. Meters (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Temper

First two definitions on Merriam Webster (noun) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/temper

Definitions 4 and 5 on Wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/temper

They are antonyms indeed.

Also I believe the way the "anger" definition came into the language was through accidental reversal of the meaning being accepted, which would make these not vaguely contrary ideas but exact opposites.

Adding to the list was rejected as "completely wrong". What do you think? I think that characterisation is itself at least partly wrong!

Specifically I think use of "completely" is wrong. But I want to know if people think use of "wrong" is also wrong or if I must concede it is right, meaning the addition of this example would be wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.227.15.2 (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was wrong, but I don't think it is a good example to list. I think the second usage is unusual enough that many readers would have the same reactions as I did. Meters (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Better, more recent, in-Wikipedia Example for "let"

A British passport contains a request that the bearer be allowed to "pass without let or hindrance".

"physical appearance" section specifically

This is better because

• it's more recent
• the cite is within Wikipedia
• it's a less confusing sentence—the Hamlet quote "he who lets me" is ambiguous-sounding and possibly even subject to different interpretations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.19.144.1 (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

103.19.144.1 -- In "without let or hindrance", the word "let" is a noun, so it's not that directly relevant to whether the verb "to let" is an Auto-antonym. Also, in modern English, the noun "let" in that sense only occurs in the phrase "without let or hindrance", so it's a Fossil word... AnonMoos (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The word "Smart" might be an autoantonym.

It seems the word "smart" is used in completely 2 different and opposite meaning, depending upon countries or places or communities. Such as in some places or cultures; the word "Smart" means who avoid learning in depth, is excellent in deception, and have acceptable and attractive skills in body language and social norms to fit in society. They tend to include examples like stereotypical food delivery boys, call-girls, receptionists, advertisers, touts or their skills in any other professional fields. So in these cultural trends, a "smart student" means a student who have a huge social connections and can easily "manage" things like proxy-attendance or exam-cheating. In some other places or cultures the term "smart" means completely opposite. They use the term for a stereotype of who is geeky or nerdy, eccentric, socially awkward, having great insights, and have good mental skills as well as a great deal of invisible mental labour they prepare at isolation or solitude. The smart ones (of this second sense) expected to come up with "honesty is the best policy" type solutions, or in other words "the millenial" as in "intellectuals solve problem, millenials prevent them".

I have witnessed the both usage but I don't have any documentation on it. I request to introduce it as example of autoantonym if it is. 2405:204:4313:D858:55AE:1695:FFA7:219F (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It would be much simpler to say that the main meaning of smart is "intelligent", while another meaning (more prevalent in the UK?) is "stylish, fashionable". By the way, the Wiktionary "smart" entry ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/smart ) is not that great... AnonMoos (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of Flammable/Inflammable picture as an example

I wanted to argue the case for removing/replacing the image example at the top of this article. Realistically, the flammable/inflammable problem is not relevant at all to the concept of a contronym. A contronym is a word with multiple, contradicting accepted meanings. If inflammable could mean both to be incendiary and non-incendiary, it would be appropriate, however inflammable has never been the negative of flammable. I would argue that the widespread misuse does not qualify it as a contronym, and as such, it should be resigned to, at most a sidenote, certainly not one of the first things readers see when they visit the article. With respect to previous editors, I just thinks its ultimately a confusing addendum to the article. I am fully open to discussing this further, or at least prioritising a more relevant, clear example before the existing one. ƒin (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Early Indo-European had two different prefixes, en- meaning "in", and n- (i.e. syllabic nasal) meaning "not, un-". Unfortunately, these two prefixes fell together in sound in early Latin (or perhaps in an immediate ancestor to Latin), both becoming in-, and there's been a certain amount of confusion between the two meanings ever since. If the word "inflammable" is avoided in safety instructions because it's likely to be confusing or ambiguous to a significant number of people, then it's an issue, no matter what dictionaries traditionally say... AnonMoos (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

While I acknowledge the confusion, and believe its still a valid part of the article as a cultural contronym, the confusion doesn't justify using it as an example. Especially since, to an individual who believes inflammable to mean non-flammable, the term doesn't act as a contronym. It still stands that it isn't the appropriate primary example. For readers who don't take the time to read the article carefully, I think the example could be confusing, leading to a belief that an auto-antonym is one in which the apparent negative functions as a synonym. Especially as the article begins with some fairly complex terms, its necessary to immediately give a clear and direct example of the term, such as 'fast' or 'clip'. ƒin (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a bad image to use and should be removed. The fact that some people don't know the correct definition does not make it an auto-antonym. I suspect that this article is one for which no image is necessary (or particularly useful). Meters (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)