words with contradictory meanings

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (407 of them)

fish fry
Fish fry can refer either to a meal of fried fish (or a social event primarily serving fried fish), or recently hatched fish. Thus, "fish fry" can refer to either the beginning or ending of life for a fish.

ain't wikipedia cuet

ledge, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 08:38 (thirteen years ago) link

decimate
The literal meaning is to reduce by one-tenth (e.g., a decimated legion). However, in modern English it is popularly used to describe a dramatic reduction in number (a population decimated by disease).

These two meanings are not antonymic. Bad wikipedia.

emil.y, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 09:47 (thirteen years ago) link

that page needs decimated.

ledge, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 09:48 (thirteen years ago) link

"Quite" can mean partly or completely. "This book is quite good" vs "This dinner is quite perfect".

bham, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 11:10 (thirteen years ago) link

would argue that's more on the words it's paired with again though.

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 11:16 (thirteen years ago) link

quite

shakiraghmac (onimo), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 11:47 (thirteen years ago) link

would think of it more as 'exactly', 'precisely' kind of thing.

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 11:54 (thirteen years ago) link

I don't know, I'm happy to accept "quite" as ambiguous, at least. In modern British (and Irish? hi darraghmac) usage the meaning of "less than completely" is so dominant that it's almost always the one intended except when paired with a superlative or something more or less superlative in meaning ("quite the best", "quite perfect" etc), but since that is the newer meaning and has only become dominant over the past century or a bit longer, there's definitely still scope for ambiguity, to me

plus I am failing to think of the exact grammatical circumstances in which it means one or the other, so I don't think it's quite settled yet

am I right in thinking that to Americans it always means "completely", or is it regional? I remember it confusing a friend from Florida.

rah rah rah wd smash the oiks (a passing spacecadet), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 12:08 (thirteen years ago) link

carbuncle

koogs, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 12:37 (thirteen years ago) link

In modern British (and Irish? hi darraghmac) usage

blowin minds here but we didn't pick up the language from reading the OED over 300 year or anything :p

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 12:52 (thirteen years ago) link

Ha, sorry, just wrote "British", and then thought that perhaps I should revise that in the light of you being the poster I was replying to. Then I was xposted by your second post on the subject and I confused myself about whether you were or weren't using it the same way. But mainly it was too close to lunchtime for me to make any sense.

Now I've had lunch and I'm still not making any sense so I'm just counting the minutes to hometime.

rah rah rah wd smash the oiks (a passing spacecadet), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 13:09 (thirteen years ago) link

as a crawling apology for colonial expansion and the subsequent ills thereof, 'i was ungry guv' hardly impresses.

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 13:33 (thirteen years ago) link

Cheek complaining to an Irishman about being hungry too

tom d: he did what he had to do now he is dead (Tom D.), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 13:34 (thirteen years ago) link

well i wasn't gonna go there tbh, i had quite a good lunch myself

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 13:36 (thirteen years ago) link

'quite'

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 13:36 (thirteen years ago) link

OK, pairing it with the same word:

"Were you happy with your meal?"
"Quite happy ... the chips were good, but the fish was cold"
"Quite happy, thank you, it was all very good"

I'd say these meanings were quite contradictory.

bham, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 14:56 (thirteen years ago) link

i wouldn't, tbh. not completely happy.

in fact the contradiction for me is saying quite happy to cold fish!

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:02 (thirteen years ago) link

quite just means very.

progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:11 (thirteen years ago) link

oooh- 'very' is a bit of a strong reading imo

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:11 (thirteen years ago) link

i'm with bham here - could be 'very', could be 'somewhat'

ledge, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:17 (thirteen years ago) link

it's all in the inflection

ledge, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:17 (thirteen years ago) link

"it was quite warm yesterday" never means somewhat warm. "she's quite intelligent" never means she's somewhat intelligent. "it was quite a fuck-up" never means it was somewhat of a fuck-up.

progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:19 (thirteen years ago) link

"she's quite intelligent" never means she's somewhat intelligent.

?!?

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:20 (thirteen years ago) link

eh i suppose we've let worse through i'm being harsh on bham my bad etc

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:22 (thirteen years ago) link

you'll have to excuse me the last famine we had was quite a severe one and recovery has been quite slow

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:22 (thirteen years ago) link

it means she's very intelligent relative to a shared baseline assumption

i.e. "it was quite warm yesterday" can refer to weather that's barely above a chill, but you weren't expecting it to be that warm so in fact, relative to what you imagined it was QUITE warm

progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:22 (thirteen years ago) link

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

ledge, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:23 (thirteen years ago) link

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

progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:24 (thirteen years ago) link

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'

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:25 (thirteen years ago) link

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

ledge, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:26 (thirteen years ago) link

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

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:28 (thirteen years ago) link

^ all in the emhpasis

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:29 (thirteen years ago) link

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?

rah rah rah wd smash the oiks (a passing spacecadet), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:47 (thirteen years ago) link

Bham OTM

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:52 (thirteen years ago) link

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

progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:57 (thirteen years ago) link

you somewhat agree

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 15:59 (thirteen years ago) link

quite = rather

Eggs, Peaches, Hot Dogs, Lamb (remy bean), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 16:01 (thirteen years ago) link

= pretty

ledge, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 16:02 (thirteen years ago) link

unpack

seandalai, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 16:05 (thirteen years ago) link

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")

rah rah rah wd smash the oiks (a passing spacecadet), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 16:05 (thirteen years ago) link

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

this is madness

progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 16:15 (thirteen years ago) link

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

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 16:15 (thirteen years ago) link

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

"It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 16:16 (thirteen years ago) link

quite good vs rather good

seandalai, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 00:22 (thirteen years ago) link

You're all quite right.

moley, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 03:35 (thirteen years ago) link

(the) shit

Mosquepanik at Ground Zero (abanana), Thursday, 5 August 2010 16:37 (thirteen years ago) link

man-flu

koogs, Thursday, 5 August 2010 16:40 (thirteen years ago) link

what does that even mean

the depressed-saggy-japanese-salaryman of ilx posters (Will M.), Thursday, 5 August 2010 16:42 (thirteen years ago) link

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.

koogs, Thursday, 5 August 2010 16:47 (thirteen years ago) link

???

Tuomas, Thursday, 5 August 2010 20:47 (thirteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.