Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Auto-antonym

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 31 posts

Re: Auto-antonym

#21

Post by mavhc »

spacemaus wrote: post #4

As a recovering language curmudgeon, it literally kills me that "literally" is now an auto-antonym too [1]. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_eng...

"You know what happened last month without anybody noticing? This is for real. Webster’s dictionary expanded the definition of the word “literally” to include the way it’s commonly misused. So the thing is, we no longer have a word in the English language that means literally. It literally doesn’t have a synonym. So we’re going to have to find a Latin word for it and use it, but see, I don’t know any Latin. So when I say that I am literally going to set fire to this building with you in it before I hand over the keys to it, you don’t know if I’m speaking figuratively or literally.” -- The Newsroom

Re: Auto-antonym

#22

Post by lt »

dotsamuelswan wrote: post #18
andrewrice wrote: post #3

The word "hack" can mean to assemble (e.g., hacking some code), but also to destroy (as in, hacking with an axe).

This is a homonym, not an auto-antonym.

Well, auto-antonyms are homographs with opposite meanings. Homonyms are a subset of homographs.

Re: Auto-antonym

#23

Post by meepmorp »

lt wrote: post #20
gabriel34 wrote: post #10

Relevant discussion from 2 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9339540

This discussion reminds me of a joke: A linguistics professor was lecturing to his class one day. "In English," he said, "a double negative forms a positive. In some languages though, such as Russian, a double negative is still a negative. However," he pointed out, "there is no language wherein a double positive can form a negative." A voice from the back of the room piped up, "Yeah, right."

I heard a version of this joke from a syntactician, but it involved a semanticist giving a conference talk on a paper he'd written. I think it's funnier that way, but that's probably the background of academic subdisciplines sniping at each other and the fear of someone pointing out that your research is just a fraud.

Re: Auto-antonym

#26

Post by ComputerGuru »

astrobe_ wrote: post #19

In french there's also the curious case of "pesanteur" (gravity), which is feminine; so "la pesanteur" (the gravity). But the absence of gravity is "apesanteur" (weightlessness), which is also a feminine word; so "l'apesenteur". So we have two slightly different words that actually sound exactly the same with their articles. It's only a few years ago that people decided to change the prefix and use "impesanteur" inst…

Thanks for sharing that! I've been learning French for the past two years and it's really opened my eyes to some things. I am already a native bilingual English/Arabic speaker, and thought Arabic was a very heavily-structured language, but learning French has made me realize that more than anything it is English that isn't. Discovering the French Anglo-Norman influence on the language I speak most often has been a very introspective and eye-opening experience for me.

Re: Auto-antonym

#27

Post by toolslive »

rolfvandekrol wrote: post #15

In Dutch the word for hostage and hostage-taker is the same (gijzelaar).

I'm not sure, but I think semantics shifted throughout the years. I think it used to be "gegijzelde(hostage)" versus "gijzelaar(hostage taker)" now it's "gijzelaar(hostage)" versus "gijzelnemer(hostage taker" or, to be absolutely unambiguous: "gegijzelde" versus "gijzelnemer".

Re: Auto-antonym

#28

Post by toolslive »

toolslive wrote: post #27
rolfvandekrol wrote: post #15

In Dutch the word for hostage and hostage-taker is the same (gijzelaar).

I'm not sure, but I think semantics shifted throughout the years. I think it used to be "gegijzelde(hostage)" versus "gijzelaar(hostage taker)" now it's "gijzelaar(hostage)" versus "gijzelnemer(hostage taker" or, to be absolutely unambiguous: "gegijzelde" versus "gijzelnemer".

Just found another one in Dutch: "weerhouden"(to keep versus to hold back), although it only seems to have both meanings in Flanders.

Re: Auto-antonym

#29

Post by rolfvandekrol »

toolslive wrote: post #27
rolfvandekrol wrote: post #15

In Dutch the word for hostage and hostage-taker is the same (gijzelaar).

I'm not sure, but I think semantics shifted throughout the years. I think it used to be "gegijzelde(hostage)" versus "gijzelaar(hostage taker)" now it's "gijzelaar(hostage)" versus "gijzelnemer(hostage taker" or, to be absolutely unambiguous: "gegijzelde" versus "gijzelnemer".

Gijzelaar was originally just the victim (hostage), but its meaning shifted over the years and now most dictionaries list both meanings as valid. https://onzetaal.nl/taaladvies/advies/gijzelaar-gegijzelde

Re: Auto-antonym

#30

Post by dllthomas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #12
dllthomas wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually disagree with the dictionary there. In my experience (and admittedly my sample is limited), no one intends "literally" to weaken or to make it clear that their usage is figurative. I think use of "literally" applied to something obviously not literal is just another example of hyperbole.

That doesn't actually disagree with the dictionary text linked in grandparent post [0], though it disagrees with the apparent interpretation of it by the post that linked it. [0] which provides, as the definition for the non-literal use: "(informal) Used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true" and, says of that use in the usage note: "In recent years, an extended use of literally (an…

On reflection, I agree!
Post reply on HN