7 ms·

This was one of my favorite "word of the day" entries, a word every speaker tries to work into their speech, at Toastmasters. The person who introduced it gave

This was one of my favorite "word of the day" entries, a word every speaker tries to work into their speech, at Toastmasters. The person who introduced it gave the two definitions and then basically said "it's the only word I know that means its opposite" or something to that effect. It got liberal use in every speech, including mine, and I still don't feel comfortable using it correctly.

jawns 2y ago
Merriam-Webster has its own entry about just that topic: words that are their own antonyms! https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/words-own-opposites https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/words-own-opposites
- jackcosgrove 2y ago
  > ‘Inflammable’ means flammable? What a country! -Dr Nick
  - denton-scratch 2y ago
    I think "inflammable" is a fake word.
  - wongarsu 2y ago
    That one's fun, because they don't really mean the same. It's just that there usually is no functional difference between the meanings. "to inflame" is to set something on fire. "to flame" is to be on fire. So something that's inflammable can be set on fire, something that's flammable can burn.
    - Y_Y 2y ago
      I would have said the same thing as you, but it now occurs to me that something that is already on fire must be flammable but it is hardly inflammable since you couldn't set it on fire again (without first putting it out at least).
      - wongarsu 2y ago
        You could also argue that some things, like most metal powders, are barely inflammable (very hard to light) but are very flammable (once they do burn they burn really well and are hard to put out)
    - Izkata 2y ago
      The way it's used on warning labels, "inflammable" means it can combust without an obvious ignition. "Flammable" needs to be set on fire from an external source.
- bxparks 2y ago
  That was a fascinating article. > Cleave is often cited as the go-to contronym: it can refer to splitting something apart and to uniting two things Weird, I cannot remember ever seeing "cleave" used to mean "uniting two things". "Inflammable" is my go-to example of a word that shouldn't exist in the English language. Causes too much confusion. I always use "flammable" and "nonflammable".
  - Karellen 2y ago
    > "Inflammable" is my go-to example of a word that shouldn't exist in the English language. What about "inflammation" (from the same root), like what happens when you bruise yourself, or injure a joint? Is that OK? Or you should you get a "flammation" instead? Edit: Or when interpersonal tensions are high, and a situation becomes inflamed?
    - bxparks 2y ago
      Ha, you make some good points and I would be ok with those words. But just because the root word (inflame) and some of its derived words are useful, that doesn't mean that we need to allow all possible prefix and suffix derivations of that root word.
      - Karellen 2y ago
        Wow. You really want some arbiter of which words are "allowed" or not? That sounds like some real Ministry of Truth type shit. It seems especially weird on a tech site, when tech jargon has historically been rich with wordplay and word construction. http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/introduction.html http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/introduction.html http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/writing-style.html http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/writing-style.html
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    That sense of 'cleave' is used in the Boney M song "Rivers of Babylon". The lyrics can be found in several song aggregation sites, such as the King James version of the Christian Bible: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Psalms#Psalm_137 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Psalms#Psa...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
fl7305 2y ago
> The person who introduced it gave the two definitions and then basically said "it's the only word I know that means its opposite" That guy is a literal pain in my behind.
JosephGuerra 2y ago
Egregious is like that, if I remember correctly

jawns 2y ago

Merriam-Webster has its own entry about just that topic: words that are their own antonyms! https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/words-own-opposites https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/words-own-opposites

jackcosgrove 2y ago
> ‘Inflammable’ means flammable? What a country! -Dr Nick
- denton-scratch 2y ago
  I think "inflammable" is a fake word.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  That one's fun, because they don't really mean the same. It's just that there usually is no functional difference between the meanings. "to inflame" is to set something on fire. "to flame" is to be on fire. So something that's inflammable can be set on fire, something that's flammable can burn.
  - Y_Y 2y ago
    I would have said the same thing as you, but it now occurs to me that something that is already on fire must be flammable but it is hardly inflammable since you couldn't set it on fire again (without first putting it out at least).
    - wongarsu 2y ago
      You could also argue that some things, like most metal powders, are barely inflammable (very hard to light) but are very flammable (once they do burn they burn really well and are hard to put out)
  - Izkata 2y ago
    The way it's used on warning labels, "inflammable" means it can combust without an obvious ignition. "Flammable" needs to be set on fire from an external source.
bxparks 2y ago
That was a fascinating article. > Cleave is often cited as the go-to contronym: it can refer to splitting something apart and to uniting two things Weird, I cannot remember ever seeing "cleave" used to mean "uniting two things". "Inflammable" is my go-to example of a word that shouldn't exist in the English language. Causes too much confusion. I always use "flammable" and "nonflammable".
- Karellen 2y ago
  > "Inflammable" is my go-to example of a word that shouldn't exist in the English language. What about "inflammation" (from the same root), like what happens when you bruise yourself, or injure a joint? Is that OK? Or you should you get a "flammation" instead? Edit: Or when interpersonal tensions are high, and a situation becomes inflamed?
  - bxparks 2y ago
    Ha, you make some good points and I would be ok with those words. But just because the root word (inflame) and some of its derived words are useful, that doesn't mean that we need to allow all possible prefix and suffix derivations of that root word.
    - Karellen 2y ago
      Wow. You really want some arbiter of which words are "allowed" or not? That sounds like some real Ministry of Truth type shit. It seems especially weird on a tech site, when tech jargon has historically been rich with wordplay and word construction. http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/introduction.html http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/introduction.html http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/writing-style.html http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/writing-style.html
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  That sense of 'cleave' is used in the Boney M song "Rivers of Babylon". The lyrics can be found in several song aggregation sites, such as the King James version of the Christian Bible: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Psalms#Psalm_137 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Psalms#Psa...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

fl7305 2y ago

> The person who introduced it gave the two definitions and then basically said "it's the only word I know that means its opposite" That guy is a literal pain in my behind.

JosephGuerra 2y ago

Egregious is like that, if I remember correctly