
Auto-Antonyms - rsj_hn
http://www.fun-with-words.com/nym_autoantonyms.html
======
dsjoerg
There's a classic Amelia Bedelia story about how she's instructed to "dust" a
room and sprinkles dust over everything.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Bedelia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Bedelia)

~~~
phjesusthatguy3
Amelia Bedelia should be required reading at some point. She's such a special
character!

------
nmstoker
Might not quite qualify as an auto-antonym, but I am entertained by the new
use of "drop" which is increasingly common in ambiguous headlines, perhaps
because the dual meaning enhances the clickbait level:

"Apple has dropped feature X" \- they're revealed this new feature "Apple has
dropped feature X" \- they no longer support this feature

~~~
rm445
Headline writers using 'dated' to mean a release date (of say a film or game)
has been announced, I can't help reading as judgement that the unreleased item
is already passé.

Even further from being an auto-antonym, but positive and negative meanings
both related to time.

------
chrisweekly
Cool site / fun list. But -- and I realize this is pedantic, though if ever
there were a time/place for it, it's commentary on a grammar site -- I feel
"resign" doesn't quite belong on it. Resign (to sign again) is pronounced with
a soft "ess", while (to quit) uses a "z" sound; they're different words w/
different pronunciations that happen to share the same spelling. Doesn't that
make them homographs? Is there a special term for this case, perhaps
homographic antonym, or anto-homograph?

~~~
rdiddly
While we're at it, _literally_ doesn't belong on it. _Literally_ has exactly
one meaning. Unsurprisingly, the wrong meaning is the opposite of the right
one.

Still think this list would help every struggling learner of English.

~~~
crazygringo
You're _literally_ wrong. :) Literally has two meanings in the dictionary, one
of which is your "wrong" one:

[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/literally)

You may be interested in linguistic descriptivism, as opposed to linguistic
prescriptivism:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description)

~~~
MagnumOpus
However, he may not be interested in talking to (or hiring) people who misuse
a word and claim that the correct use is a matter of perspective.

We can be descriptive in saying that people use "literally" when they don't
mean "literally" \- we can also be descriptive when we label such people as
ignorant of the meaning of the words they use.

~~~
gattilorenz
> he may not be interested in talking to (or hiring) people who misuse a word
> and claim that the correct use is a matter of perspective.

Because that would be _the worst_. _No one ever_ says something while meaning
something else.

When, while sitting at the table, people ask me if I can pass them the water,
I check if I can reach the bottle, I check if I'm close enough to them, then I
say "yes, I can" and keep eating.

~~~
jbarberu
My brother did something similar growing up. In Swedish a common way to ask
the time is "Vad är klockan?", literally translating to "What is the watch?".
To which I got "An invention that tells the time" or some variation thereof
for years...

~~~
schoen
I wonder how many languages' time-telling questions could be susceptible of a
different literal interpretation.

It seems like the Spanish and Portuguese could be literally taken as "what are
hours?" ("intervals of sixty minutes!") (although I don't think it would be
the most idiomatic way to ask that question in either language), while one
German option is "how late is it?" ("not very!").

There's another German question which could be taken as "how much clock is
it?", but since clocks are usually discrete objects, it might be quite a
strain to try to take this as a question about something's clock-nature.
(Maybe if you were looking at Dalí's _Persistence of Memory_ , you could
answer something like "this one is not very much clock".)

~~~
jbarberu
It's about 20% clock, 70% men's jewellery and 10% guilty pleasure ;)

------
coldpie
With all the political discussion about Britain recently, the table/table
antonym described in this list has come up among my friends lately. In
Britain, you "table" a motion to put it up for consideration. In the US, if a
motion is "tabled" it is put off until later. Very closely related but
directly opposite meanings makes for some confusing discussions, where you
need to know the nationality of the writer to have any chance of understanding
the statement.

~~~
J-dawg
A couple of others that baffle this British English speaker:

\- "I could care less" meaning "I couldn't care less"

\- "Entrée" meaning a main dish rather than a starter

~~~
kdmccormick
I take "I could care less" to mean "I could care even less about this than I
already do, that's how little it matters to me", but that could just be me
trying to rationalize a mangled expression.

~~~
Eggdog
Well, yes, but it's always possible to care less about something, unless you
are already at the state of absolute-uncaring. Therefore, "I could care less"
does nothing to express the desired sentiment.

"I couldn't care less" is a much clearer reference to being at this state of
absolute-uncaring.

------
marzell
As an American English speaker, I've only used "overlook" as a verb to mean
"miss noticing entirely", but as a noun related to "examine", for instance a
"forest overlook" might be a scenic turnout on the side of a road that
provides a view where the forest could be "examined".

Similarly we use the word "oversee" for examining/observing... however
"oversight" has taken on the role of an Auto-Antonym. We often use "oversight"
and "lack of oversight" to mean the same thing, that something was missed due
to carelessness... but we also use it to mean "supervision" that should
prevent careless omissions from happening.

~~~
m12k
In the case of such a scenic turnout, wouldn't you then also use "overlook" as
a verb, for example in 'the hills that overlook the valley'?

------
Grue3
"Terrific" used to be a synonym for "terrible", and "awesome" for "awful".
Even the word "bad" has a slang meaning of "good".

In Japanese 適当 is supposed to mean "appropriate, proper", but in practice it
almost always means "unserious, sloppy, careless". Not sure how that came
about.

~~~
Lxr
Similar to 厉害 in Chinese - it often translates as terrible, but mostly used to
mean great.

~~~
gwd
"Awesome" and "Aweful" have similar etymologoies: both mean, "Inspiring or
creating awe". But one has morphed into, "really good", and the other into
"really bad".

~~~
thaumasiotes
Likewise "terrible" and "terrific".

------
spieglt
"Cheap" is another one that bothered me as a kid. It means both "of low
quality considering its price" and "of low price considering its quality."

~~~
hanoz
And in turn its antonym "dear" is similarly conflicted.

------
kashyapc
Appreciate this; thanks!

On the misuse of the word "literally", I wholeheartedly agree with the
following reader comment from an excellent EconTalk podcast, "John McWhorter
on the Evolution of Language and Words on the Move"[1]:

 _This whole “literally” issue seems to have been mis-framed. The reason many
of us object to the use of the word “literally” to mean “figuratively” isn’t
that we can’t stand the thought of language evolving; it’s because there’s no
replacement for it! I once had a friend say to me, “X is literally Y, and I
mean ‘literally’ literally (not figuratively).”_

    
    
               - - -
    

From the same[1] podcast, I also learnt about this fun concept called
"backshift": when two words join to become a single word (e.g. "breakfast",
"blackboard", etc), the accent often shifts to the first word. In McWhorter's
words: _When something becomes an established concept and it 's made up of two
or more words, then you, very often have that shift to the back of the word_
[i.e. the first word].

I'm not all doing justice to the topic. But go check the transcript[1] for
"backshift", Mcwhorter gives more context. I'd strongly suggest to _listen_ to
it; it clicks much better, as we're talking about word accents.

[1] [https://www.econtalk.org/john-mcwhorter-on-the-evolution-
of-...](https://www.econtalk.org/john-mcwhorter-on-the-evolution-of-language-
and-words-on-the-move/)

------
genmon
My favourites are words that mean the opposite in different Englishes. For
example

* to table: postpone (US English) vs put forward for consideration (British English)

* to (take a) punt: give up (US) vs go ahead (British)

What could we call these... Alter-Anglo-Auto-Antonyms?

~~~
vumgl
Also, this used to cause trouble with phone operators connecting phone calls
between USA and England: "are you through?" could mean either "are you
connected?" or "are you done with the conversation?"

------
the_af
Not exactly an auto-antonym, but similar: in Spanish we have a verb,
"alquilar", which means simultaneously "to rent" and "to rent out", and it
drives me crazy that it's often unclear from which end of the relation one is
speaking:

"Man, the law is so unfair to people who rent!"

"Do you mean unfair to the owner of the property or to the tenant who pays the
rent?"

(It doesn't translate perfectly to English, but works in Spanish)

edit: wait, I see "lease" is in the list and it has _exactly_ the same
problem! Take that, English language! :D

~~~
joemi
I'm not sure if it's officially correct, but I've heard both "rent to" and
"rent from" used colloquially in (American) English.

~~~
thaumasiotes
I'm sure you're also able to indicate the roles of tenant and landlord in
Spanish. But just like in English, you're not required to.

~~~
the_af
Right! You have "propietario" (the person who owns the property) and
"inquilino" (the person paying the rent). But confusingly enough the verb is
still "alquilar" ("to rent") for both :)

So if you say "voy a alquilar esta casa" ("I'm going to rent this house") it's
not clear whether you're the landlord or the tenant.

~~~
jessaustin
"Renter" would also be ambiguous, although "lessor" and "lessee" do have
specific meanings.

------
brianpgordon
Collections of words like this really amuse me for some reason. I have my own
collection of animal names which are also verbs:

[https://gist.github.com/briangordon/e64d58b6b9abab346014ff05...](https://gist.github.com/briangordon/e64d58b6b9abab346014ff05f56ad920)

------
pure-awesome
I'm surprised "original" didn't make the list.

For example, consider "An original telling of the story" vs "The original
telling of the story".

~~~
kace91
I'm not sure that qualifies as auto antonyms.

Original means the origin/birth in both examples, the difference lies not in
the meaning of original but in the word it affects (The telling, or the story
itself)

------
hirundo
I wish it was socially acceptable to reply with a compiler error when people
use these words. Like "Ambiguous token in the current namespace." Maybe that
makes me a nerd, on the spectrum, or just pedantic. Or a pedantic nerd on the
spectrum.

~~~
Doxin
Somewhat related: I wish human languages would have the concept of a parse
error. Often enough someone says something to me that I'll hear with 100%
clarity, but still have no clue what they are trying to say, after which it's
often time to play the "what" game until they rephrase.

~~~
bcbrown
You might find [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-
path_sentence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence)
interesting.

~~~
gnode
Very interesting. The article's "see also" references branch prediction. Given
all the nascent security findings around cache security, it makes me wonder
whether disfluency could be used to attack cognition, in interrogative
techniques or subversive advertising, for instance.

------
meuk
Suggestion:

    
    
        leave (verb)
        1. To go away
        2. To keep in place

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
covered already by "left", its past-tense form

~~~
thaumasiotes
Not really an autoantonym, as the syntax of the sentence will only ever permit
one or the other. ("Left" [remaining] is passive, while "left" [went away] is
intransitive and therefore cannot be passive.)

------
schoen
There are some religious concepts that could be seen as auto-antonyms. The
Polynesian words from which we get "taboo" refer to something sacred to the
gods, which therefore ordinary people are forbidden to use or interfere with.

[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tapu](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tapu)
[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kapu#Hawaiian](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kapu#Hawaiian)

The taboo thing could therefore be seen as very good and important (for gods)
or as very bad, improper, or dangerous (for people, outside of the appropriate
religious context). I think that many cultures have had a similar dual
connotation in words related to sacred things, even if they don't have exactly
the same cultural rules.

It's interesting to look at the meanings of Latin "sacer" (the origin of our
word "sacred") as an analogy:

[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sacer#Adjective](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sacer#Adjective)

------
AndrewOMartin
"quite" can be used to mean "entirely". "He was quite dead", "It was quite the
worst thing I ever saw".

It also means "partially". "It was quite nice", etc.

I think this comes from people using the phrase "It was quite good" in cases
when they weren't _hugely_ impressed.

~~~
oceliker
I read somewhere that American and British usage of “quite” is different —
Americans use it to mean “entirely”, while British use it to mean “fairly”.

~~~
dspillett
English English speaker here: quite is often used both ways. While it is
defined as meaning "fairly" it is usually used to mean a little more than that
("the weather is quite nice" means somewhere between "the weather is fair" and
"the weather is nice"), it is also used to mean entirely but usually in a
sarcastic manner where the juxtaposition of the entirelyness of your intent
and the fairlyness of the actually meaning of the word stands out ("oh, you
are quite wrong there"). Also, in combination with a negative it usually means
entirely (as in "the job isn't quite done yet").

These are far from hard & fast rules though. In spoken situations the intended
meaning is generally obvious from tone, in written text it can be quite
ambiguous.

There is at least one use where the word means both at once: when it is used
on its own: Person one: "The man is an utter 'king imbecile", Person two:
"Quite" or P1: "WOOOOOOHOOOOOOO!!!!!!", P2: "Quite". Here it means "I agree
(on a binary yes/no level) but I wouldn't put it that strongly". Similar to
how "indeed" is often used.

------
yellowapple
I don't get the inclusion of "comprise". How are "to contain; include" and "to
be composed of; consist of" opposites of one another? Consisting of or being
composed of something definitionally means containing or including it, no?

~~~
jessaustin
Yes, these two definitions are very close to each other. "Comprise" does not
belong here.

Others I would remove:

"quantum": It really means something more like "discrete", and discrete values
might be small or large depending on one's perspective.

"splice": I find no support for the second definition.

Still, many of these are very nice.

------
stOneskull
my favourite type of word. although i refuse to accept the new definition of
literally to mean figuratively. i want it taken back.

~~~
thechao
The word “literally” is an _intensifier_ ; do you have the same objection to
the use of ‘really’, or ‘actually’? ‘Literally’ was first used to mean “from
the text” in the late 17th c. By the early 19th c. it was already fully co-
opted as an intensifier.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
It still doesn't feel like "literally" has been fully co-opted to me, at least
not for anyone who isn't a teenager. I'd same the same about "actually", but I
don't think I've even heard teenagers use it as a mere intensifier.

~~~
iikoolpp
It's been fully co-opted everywhere except in the headspace of internet
prescriptivists.

------
arsmoriendi
Slightly related: Homographic homophonic autantoyms
[http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1104](http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1104)

------
tajstar
Very cool list. I little sad the word "peruse" mean to read over in an
attentive or leisurely manner is not on the list it's one of my favorite
autoantonyms.

------
smilekzs
> temper (1) to soften; mollify (2) to strengthen (e.g. a metal)

Not contradictory because hardness and toughness are 2 distinct (though
correlated) properties. Tempering [1] is basically a process that trades some
hardness (i.e. soften) for a lot of toughness (i.e. strengthen).

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempering_(metallurgy)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempering_\(metallurgy\))

------
benj111
Shit

•very good, excellent; "cool".

•of poor quality; "bad".

[http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-
of/shit](http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/shit)

Edit: Credit?

Theres credit in the sense of receiving money, and money in the sense of money
going out.

This probably makes more sense to people who have learnt double entry book
keeping where credit and debits are reversed compared to popular usage.

~~~
dwohnitmok
"Shit" is an interesting case and not a straightforward auto-antonym. The
meaning of shit hinges entirely on whether it is preceded by "the."

------
tngranados
Aladeen submission.

------
billfruit
I think list is missing a most interesting word of this type, 'nonplussed',
which can mean either perturbed or not perturbed.

~~~
ScottBurson
Never heard it used to mean "not perturbed"; I think it's just a misconstrual.
The origin of the word is the French "non plus" meaning "no more": one can't
think of anything else to say; one is speechless.

~~~
billfruit
Now in common usage among Americans it seems to mean "not perturbed".

[https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-
play/nonplussed](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/nonplussed)

------
loquor
Were auto-antonyms meant to have opposing meanings based on the context? Or do
they become that way when people assume the meaning incorrectly?

For example, nonplussed originally means to be surprised. But a layman would
think that to be 'plussed' must be to be surprised and nonplussed must be the
opposite of that. Is this how auto-antonyms come to be?

~~~
djsumdog
It explains it a bit at the bottom of the article with dust (to dust furniture
is to clean them, but to dust crops is to put dust on them); but it does seem
to be around noun/verb context/usage.

------
ScottBurson
They should add the very similar "cite" and "citation". You can be cited for
bravery, or for speeding.

~~~
jmah
Maybe an encompassing description of "cite" is "to publicly recognize"

------
zrm
A lot of these are just words describing two-subject events. When there is a
lease, someone is lending and someone is borrowing. Same for rent, bill, left,
etc.

A lot of the others are present vs. past tense. After you put something where
you want it, you want it to stay put.

------
tyingq
I like the 3rd definition of this word: [https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/trump](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/trump)

~~~
drcongo
It also means fart in British English. It was quite funny that the US had a
President Fart for about 3 minutes until the reality set in.

~~~
4ndr3vv
Similarly inverted: Johnson

~~~
ScottBurson
A recent headline: "Floppy Johnson Can't Get an Election"

------
tlb
I like homeophone-antonyms -- words with antonyms that sound similar enough
that if you slur a little bit, people won't be sure which you said.

Eg: I find your suggestion risible/reasonable.

------
jwilk
Wiktionary has a longer list:

[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:English_contranyms](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:English_contranyms)

------
ccvannorman
Artifact: Intentional object created by humans Artifact:
Unintentional/erroneous feature expressed in the creation of an object

------
adg29
Wonder if NLP and machine learning algos are equipped to disambiguate the
intended meaning of an autoantonym, with respect to its context.

~~~
samatman
Fairly sure a simple word2vec would cover the majority of cases.

------
harterrt
Biweekly? One every two weeks or twice a week.

~~~
marzell
Biweekly means every two weeks. Twice a week is "semiweekly" although people
often get this wrong. There's also "semimonthly" for twice a month.

------
daxfohl
Hysterical: extremely funny or horrified.

------
rkuykendall-com
One I noticed at the grocery is pre-cooked. It means cooked for Turkeys and
uncooked for Tortillas.

------
air7
This happened to me just now: In a two story building, "First Floor" can mean
either one.

~~~
DoreenMichele
In the US, first floor is what Europeans call the ground floor. So I think it
depends on where you are.

------
Invictus0
How about nonplussed? It means to be surprised and confused, and also
unperturbed.

------
torgard
I had not heard of this term before!

And the inclusion of literally made me smile

~~~
empath75
The inclusion of what literally made you smile?

------
spodek
_Academic_ can mean

\- important enough to merit study

\- trivial enough to be dismissed

------
achairapart
I expected to find the word __blues __in it.

------
cmonnow
literally is literally my favorite

------
1-6
set = to put in place, to replace

------
thrwaaayr488
Great list! My favorite is on it. The verb "sanction" is my "favorite" since
the two meanings are both political and totally opposite. If you just read
"the United States sanctioned the action" you have literally no idea if it
means they expressly allowed it, no problem go right ahead, or if it means
they were so mad they did something negative in response, oh, we're punishing
you for that. I would say you can't even use the word for that reason.

~~~
gumby
The contradictory meaning of "sanction" is very recent and dates to the 90s
(referring to trade restrictions on Iraq). Because it's so new it really
annoys me (as opposed to, say, cleave).

When I hear it I still hear as it was used: we (was it the UN? US? I can no
longer remember) sanction your restricting trade with this other country.
Which on TV was abbreviated/blurred and thus within only a couple of years the
standalone term had acquired the new meaning!

So at least to me your sentence seems clear: I don't feel like the meaning has
changed quite as much as you do. But since you interpret it that way: perhaps
I am wrong!

It's a shame the google ngram tool only consults text. TV is a rich source of
neologisms.

~~~
lonelappde
Merriam Webster says you are off by a few hundred years: [https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/sanction](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/sanction)

~~~
gumby
I was excited to look up and see what I had gotten wrong but I don't see it in
that entry. It lists the "first uses" as being definition 1 of noun and verb,
i.e. precisely my example (UN sanction on restriction of trade).

They do quote (the wonderful) Molly Ivins, who passed away in 2007.

------
air7
Do you mean literally as in • actually; really or • figuratively; virtually ?

~~~
gwd
That one really needs to go away from the list; I refuse to accept
"figuratively" as a valid definition for "literally", and will contradict /
argue with / make fun of anyone who does so.

~~~
cbkeller
I sympathise, but for better or worse the OED reports that people have been
using "literally" to mean "figuratively"* since at least 1769:

    
    
      > 1769   F. Brooke *Hist. Emily Montague* IV. ccxvii. 83 "He is a fortunate man to be introduced to such a party of fine women at his arrival; it is literally to feed among the lilies."
      > 1801   *Spirit of Farmers' Museum* 262   "He is, literally, made up of marechal powder, cravat, and bootees."
      > 1825   J. Denniston *Legends Galloway* 99   "Lady Kirkclaugh, who, literally worn to a shadow, died of a broken heart."
      > 1863   F. A. Kemble *Jrnl. Resid. Georgian Plantation* 105   "For the last four years..I literally coined money."
      > 1876   ‘M. Twain’ *Adventures Tom Sawyer* ii. 20   "And when the middle of the afternoon came, from being a poor poverty-stricken boy in the morning, Tom was literally rolling in wealth."
    

[*] Or as they, put it, "Used to indicate that some (frequently conventional)
metaphorical or hyperbolical expression is to be taken in the strongest
admissible sense"

~~~
quotemstr
This style of argument is not persuasive. It can only tell us that people have
been making an error since 1769 or something. It can't tell us that we should
tolerate this error in well constructed writing. You're demonstrated nothing.

~~~
cbkeller
One may or may not like it, but that is _literally_ how language works.

~~~
gwd
Language is a democracy. When people say thing like "My head literally
exploded", they are voting for "literally" to be a meaningless intensifier.
When I make fun of them, I'm voting for it to have the meaning, "This actually
happened".

Think about which way you _want_ the language to be, and then use your vote.

~~~
cgriswald
Democracy implies you both have equal votes and there is an outcome that can
become the norm. They are using the word 'literally' in a way that imbues
additional meaning (or arguably makes a new word) without seeking permission
from society or community. You are using (mild, well-meant) social coercion to
try to suppress that usage. I'd say it's more anarchy than democracy.

------
daxfohl
biweekly et al \- every other week \- twice a week

~~~
theandrewbailey
Bi- means two, so biweekly is every two weeks. Twice a week would be
semiweekly (every half week), right?

~~~
daxfohl
Semiweekly is explicit. Biweekly is ambiguous.

[https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/on-biweekly-
an...](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/on-biweekly-and-
bimonthly)

Biweekly and bimonthly can mean the same thing because of the prefix bi-,
which here can mean “occurring every two” or “occurring twice in.”

~~~
jessaustin
The idiom is damaged by careless use. It reminds me of some friends who insist
that "penultimate" means "ultimate"...

~~~
daxfohl
I don't think it is carelessness in this case. The prefix bi can have both
meanings and ultimately it comes down to indeterminate parsing: (biweek)ly or
bi(weekly), and thus can only be resolved by convention. But both usages have
been long established (at least in the US) so we're stuck. This seems far
different from the penultimate or literally or hysterical misuses that became
a careless norm.

Semiweekly suffers from the same logical discrepancy, but unlike biweekly the
convention is well established (though you hardly ever hear the term in the
US. In fact before this thread I wouldn't have known which it meant. (other
than definitely being the opposite of biweekly... so...))

