|
|
| Author |
Message |
davel
|
|
linguistic flip-flops
| 
Sep 22 00:52 UTC 1992 |
This is kind of a grab-bag item. A lot of different words have, over time,
had significant changes in their meanings. For some, the change has been
especially radical - they have come to mean, or include among their meanings,
the opposites or opposing correlatives of their former meanings. Examples
that just come to mind:
doubt
inflammable
infer
comprise
And, of course, there are many others.
In some cases the reason for the shift in meaning is pretty obvious; of the
above, "inflammable" is an example. I think maybe I see why "infer" has come
to be used to mean "imply" and "comprise" to mean "compose" - both were
somewhat technical and had the disadvantage of sounding a bit like some of
their correlatives, & I suspect that misuse by those wishing to show off
their vocabularies is to blame. But why the shift in "doubt", for example?
I invite everyone to provide either examples or explanations. I wouldn't
rule out other languages, except to ask that the examples be enlightening
to those who don't understand the language in question; they are most welcome
if they provide evidence for or against any theories that may come up.
|
| 9 responses total. |
katie
|
|
response 1 of 9:
|
Sep 22 01:24 UTC 1992 |
Cleave.
|
davel
|
|
response 2 of 9:
|
Oct 27 04:28 UTC 1992 |
Um. Yes. I have no idea on that one. I finally gave up & cheated - checked
a (handy, not especially good in this dept) dictionary. It says cleave=cling
comes from OE clifian, cleave=separate comes from OE cleofan. Knowing no OE
whatsoever I can't begin to guess whether they're related.
A slightly different pattern: "loose" and "ravel" both have corresponding
forms ("unloose" and "unravel") which would appear to be opposites but mean
exactly the same. These seem (to me) different from the flammable/inflammable
pair in that inflammable is the original & flammable a back formation - & in
that I have seen "inflammable" used to mean it won't burn(!). The seduction
in that move seems obvious - but why wouldn't "unloose" mean "tighten"?
|
daes
|
|
response 3 of 9:
|
Oct 29 23:49 UTC 1992 |
(hmmmmmm...)
(perplexed pause above)
I have never heard of "unloose"
|
davel
|
|
response 4 of 9:
|
Oct 31 02:19 UTC 1992 |
I have met it in use, but here's what the handy dict (American Heritage paper,
c. 1983 - & a *super* job for a paperback!) says:
> ... also *unloosen* ... . 1.To let loose or unfasten; release. 2.To relax
> or ease.
|
davel
|
|
response 5 of 9:
|
Aug 22 10:46 UTC 1994 |
A couple more that have recently come to mind or attention:
"Moot" can either mean subject to debate because unresolved, or decided and
hence no longer subject to (useful) debate.
"Doubt" is quite interesting. I've met it in historical contexts, and it
apparently used to mean the exact opposite of what it means now, in say
the 17th century. <gets out OED> Hm. More complicated than I thought.
It apparently could mean something like "fear", and so "I doubt that ..."
could mean "I'm afraid that ..." - expressing confidence in the outcome
in a way totally at variance with today's usage, but with an implication
(that I'd missed entirely when I'd seen examples) of displeasure at
what followed.
|
brighn
|
|
response 6 of 9:
|
Aug 22 20:03 UTC 1994 |
Nice. Used to mean simple (as in simple-minded).
Or so I've heard.
|
kami
|
|
response 7 of 9:
|
Aug 22 22:29 UTC 1994 |
ah, conversation and intercourse appear to have traded meanings, to some
extent.
I believe "scent" used to mean an unpleasant odor, "odor" a pleasant one,
and possibly also "stink" but I'm not sure.
|
mdw
|
|
response 8 of 9:
|
Aug 23 08:14 UTC 1994 |
Most of the "smell" words start out historically as euphemisms to
describe pleasant smells, then get applied to unpleasant smells, after
which a new smell word has to be found to replace the old tainted word.
|
kami
|
|
response 9 of 9:
|
Aug 23 15:42 UTC 1994 |
that's about how I had understood it.
|