words with contradictory meanings

"she's _quite_ intelligent, but not really mensa material"

i.e. she's very intelligent, but not really mensa material ...

relative to a shared baseline assumption

eh that's not bad that, i like that.

but xp there's usually shades of qualification to using 'quite' too- it's middle ground stuff, you're not enthusing with 'quite'

xp i.e. she's somewhat intelligent but not really mensa material imo

she's surprisingly intelligent, not shockingly so, but i'm more interested in her friend tbh

^ all in the emhpasis

OK, I'd read the first 2 of Tracer's "never means somewhat" examples as "somewhat". "Quite a (noun)" doesn't seem to mean "somewhat", it's true. But with suitable emphasis "it was quite warm yesterday, but I was expecting it to get hotter than it did" is just as reasonable as "it was quite warm yesterday, I was surprised how warm it got" to my ears.

(tl;dr time)

OED says "As an intensifier: completely, fully, entirely; to the utmost extent or degree" and attests this usage before an adjective from c1480; usage modifying verb to signify thorough completion of action is even older. Then "as an emphasizer: actually, really, truly, positively; definitely; very much, considerably" is attested from 1624.

"As a moderating adverb: to a certain or significant extent or degree; moderately, somewhat, rather; relatively, reasonably" is attested in form "quite a(n) (adjective)" from 1808, and directly before an adjective or adverb from 1886. So, much more recent.

It notes "This sense is often difficult to distinguish from sense A. II., out of which it developed", so it's not just me and bham thinking it's ambiguous, A.II being the "as an emphasizer" section. Further, it says "rare in N. Amer. usage", which sort of answers my question upthread, and may suggest why Tracer may think it's less common?

Bham OTM

basically what you're saying is that Americans speak more clearly and correctly - I quite agree

you somewhat agree

quite = rather

= pretty

unpack

Basically what I'm saying is that Americans can make their point without several paragraphs of quotations from a dictionary strewn among bad punctuation and clumsy summarising, that's quite true

(PS I missed the bit "With many adjectives and adverbs (esp. gradable ones), quite is ambiguous between this sense and sense A. I.; in the latter sense it now tends to collocate with particular kinds of adjective and adverb (esp. non-gradable ones)", and now I think about it this "gradability" is key - "perfect" is not gradable; "true" or "agree" are arguable cases so need a more specific flag of only partial agreement; "good" is gradable, so UK-side "quite good" generally means "eh, it was OK")

UK-side "quite good" generally means "eh, it was OK"

this is madness

Think Tracer's point about prior expectations is a doozy, tho I'm not sure it doesn't actually strengthen the case for the 'nays' tbh

xp yeah 'quite good' all but begs to be finished with a sulky 'i suppose'

quite good vs rather good

You're all quite right.

(the) shit

man-flu

what does that even mean

man-flu is the flu that only men get.

if you're male then it's an extra bad case of the flu, worse than normal flu.
if you're female then it means a cold with exaggerated symptoms.

???

man-flu not a universal concept then. http://www.manflu.info/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_flu

anyway, look, up there, 'carbuncle'.

go on...

ah i guess you mean an abscess larger than a boil, usually with one or more openings draining pus onto the skin, vs. a deep-red cabochon cut gemstone usually garnet, specifically almandine.

Thought it might be the shorthand name for an intercontinental derby between Manchester United and Fluminense.

prince charles famously called some extension or other a carbuncle on the face of an old friend. meaning an ugly thing. cf gemstone, a thing generally prized for its beauty.

some extension or other

http://www.ribapix.com/image.php?i=17036&r=2&t=4&x=1

(national gallery) (london) (uk)

That'd be an Art Carbuncle then.

you're here all week i trust

I'm sorry! Speaking of which, what about 'gag'?

moot

yeah moot works i think

kick

secure

terminator

pious

"moot" is perfect

suspicious?

maybe not self-contradictory but consider:

those men look suspicious.

vs.

i'm suspicious of those men.

i was coming here to suggest that one!

along with perennial favourite 'curious'

Update!

SUBMIT

"Drift" as targeted deliberate movement, being formerly part of the verb "drive", vs "drift" i.e. meander aimlessly

(having crossed over via magic quantum superposition e.g. snowdrifts and drifting at sea where you're meandering because something else is driving you)

admittedly I'm struggling to think of a particularly convincing surviving example of the former - OED says "(do you get my) drift" = "what I am driving at", but for me that also works as a sarcastic suggestion that you are leaving it as a gentle undercurrent for the more astute listener, rather than actively shoving in that direction

I have been incoherent here and will be zung if anyone can be bothered, must be hometime

"Trailer" = something that comes before (eg a film) or after (eg a car)

suspicious?

maybe not self-contradictory but consider:

those men look suspicious.

vs.

i'm suspicious of those men.

― tangelo amour (elmo argonaut), Wednesday, 1 September 2010 15:21 (Yesterday)

I suspect 'those men look suspicious' is actually a misuse of the word that has become so common as to be accepted.

Like 'suspicious behaviour' should probably be 'behaviour arousing suspicion'.