My choice would be inflammable--easy to set on fire; however, so many
persons were ignorant of the meaning and got burned that the federal gov't
barred its use on goods: you must say nonflamable or flamable
Scott Catledge
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 12:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 8 Dec 2009 to 9 Dec 2009 (#2009-251)
There are 4 messages totalling 651 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Words that are their own opposites (3)
2. Dennis Baron's article
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 00:02:25 -0500
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Words that are their own opposites
Mellowdrama struck me initially as a potential eggcorn (http://eggcorns.las=
cribe.net/), but I googled it and it looks like the vast majority of hits h=
ave to do with a band or a theatre group. I didn't see any naive uses in t=
he five pages of hits that I checked. The girl's use that you mention may =
indicate that it is a potential eggcorn, but not one that's very widespread=
yet.
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]
U] On Behalf Of Susan van Druten [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: December 8, 2009 8:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Words that are their own opposites
"Sick" fits with the slang terms.
And just this morning I heard a girl ask her friend if "mellowdrama"
meant it was a laid back performance. I laughed back to my
classroom--never having thought of that word that way.
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:31 PM, Larry Beason wrote:
> I wonder how many slang terms fit into this category, such as the
> use of
> "bad" to mean something that is essentially commendable. Or the
> use of
> "bomb" to mean something that fails ("That movie bombed") or something
> that is good ("She's the bomb.") I have a feeling such
> reformations of
> 'bad words' reflect the sort of shock value and group-bonding that we
> often find in slang.
>
> 'Bale' might fit this category too: 1. To gather together ("We baled
> hay"). 2. To leave ("Halfway through the party, we baled.")
>
> Larry
>
> ____________________________
> Larry Beason, Associate Professor
> Director of Composition
> University of South Alabama
> Mobile, AL 36688-0002
> Office: 251-460-7861
> FAX: 251-461-1517
>
>
>>>> Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> 12/8/2009 1:01 PM >>>
> On a less weighty note, my colleague Todd Berliner has been collecting
> words
> with seemingly contradictory definitions. I've copied his list below.
> Can
> anyone supply further examples?
>
> *Words That Are Their Own Opposites*
>
> *oversight*
> 1. Watchful care or management; supervision.
> 2. a failure to notice something. An unintentional omission or
> mistake. an error
> "Because there was no oversight there was an oversight."
>
> *presently*
> 1. In a short time; soon
> 2. At this time or period; now
> "He will do it presently, because he can't do it presently."
>
> *cull*
> 1. To gather; collect
> 2. To remove rejected members or parts from
> "We culled the chickens so that they would not be culled"
>
> *traffic*
> 1. passage
> 2. stoppage
> "Because there was so much traffic there was no traffic"
>
> *fearsome*
> 1. Causing or capable of causing fear
> 2. Fearful; timid.
> "Because we weren't fearsome enough, we were fearsome"
>
> *temper*
> 1. a tendency to become angry or out of control
> 2. Calmness of mind or emotions; composure
> "He had a temper because he often lost his temper"
>
> *let*
> 1. to not prevent or hinder
> 2. to hinder (as in tennis =93a let=94)
> "Let him go to the movies; don't let him from going"
>
> *bolt*
> 1. affix, attach, connect
> 2. to flee
> "They bolted because they weren't bolted."
>
> *terrific*
> 1. Very bad or unpleasant; frightful: a terrific headache
> 2. Very good or fine; splendid: a terrific tennis player
> "It was a terrific experience because there was nothing terrific about
> it."
>
> *cleave*
> 1. to join together
> 2. to break apart
> "We cleaved them so tightly that no one could cleave them."
>
> I can think of an addition to Todd's list:
>
> *awful*: 1. Awe-inspiring. 2. Disdain-provoking. "The mystic thought
> it
> would be god-awful not to experience God's awful presence in the
> hereafter."
>
>
> and maybe also:
>
> *unlockable: *1. Not lockable. 2. Able to be unlocked. "Before we
> locked the
> door, it seemed unlockable; then it seemed unlockable.
>
> Any others?
>
> Dick Veit
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface =
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/=
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 06:37:53 +0000
From: Edmond Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Words that are their own opposites
> The Indo-European root BHLEG meant 'to shine, burn', obviously associatin=
g
flames with light, as in the word 'flagrant' from Latin 'flagrare' (to blaz=
e,
probably with black smoke). By a metonymic link, there was also the suggest=
ion
of what was burnt, therefore black. It is no surprise that as a result we =
have
the English word 'black', which is etymologically linked with 'flagrare', b=
eing
similar to the French 'blanche' (white), our 'blank' and the verb 'blanch' =
(to
whiten, grow pale). The Old Norse word 'blakkr' meant a white horse.
It seems likely that metonymic links like this became established because
opposites suggest each other, plus the fact of its being common that simple
mistakes were made -- as that made by the child looking over a cliff and
saying "It's high down there."
The word 'down' itself is another example, meaning, in southeastern England=
,
a hill (the North Downs, the South Downs, Tolkien's 'Barrow Downs').
Edmond
Dr. Edmond Wright
3 Boathouse Court
Trafalgar Road
Cambridge
CB4 1DU
England
Email: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/
Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256
Mellowdrama struck me initially as a potential eggcorn
> (http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/), but I googled it and it looks like the v=
ast
> majority of hits have to do with a band or a theatre group. I didn't see=
any
> naive uses in the five pages of hits that I checked. The girl's use that=
you
> mention may indicate that it is a potential eggcorn, but not one that's v=
ery
> widespread yet.
>=20
> Herb
>=20
> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
> Emeritus Professor of English
> Ball State University
> Muncie, IN 47306
> [log in to unmask]
> ________________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]
EDU]
> On Behalf Of Susan van Druten [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: December 8, 2009 8:57 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Words that are their own opposites
>=20
> "Sick" fits with the slang terms.
>=20
> And just this morning I heard a girl ask her friend if "mellowdrama"
> meant it was a laid back performance. I laughed back to my
> classroom--never having thought of that word that way.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:31 PM, Larry Beason wrote:
>=20
>> I wonder how many slang terms fit into this category, such as the
>> use of
>> "bad" to mean something that is essentially commendable. Or the
>> use of
>> "bomb" to mean something that fails ("That movie bombed") or something
>> that is good ("She's the bomb.") I have a feeling such
>> reformations of
>> 'bad words' reflect the sort of shock value and group-bonding that we
>> often find in slang.
>>=20
>> 'Bale' might fit this category too: 1. To gather together ("We baled
>> hay"). 2. To leave ("Halfway through the party, we baled.")
>>=20
>> Larry
>>=20
>> ____________________________
>> Larry Beason, Associate Professor
>> Director of Composition
>> University of South Alabama
>> Mobile, AL 36688-0002
>> Office: 251-460-7861
>> FAX: 251-461-1517
>>=20
>>=20
>>>>> Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> 12/8/2009 1:01 PM >>>
>> On a less weighty note, my colleague Todd Berliner has been collecting
>> words
>> with seemingly contradictory definitions. I've copied his list below.
>> Can
>> anyone supply further examples?
>>=20
>> *Words That Are Their Own Opposites*
>>=20
>> *oversight*
>> 1. Watchful care or management; supervision.
>> 2. a failure to notice something. An unintentional omission or
>> mistake. an error
>> "Because there was no oversight there was an oversight."
>>=20
>> *presently*
>> 1. In a short time; soon
>> 2. At this time or period; now
>> "He will do it presently, because he can't do it presently."
>>=20
>> *cull*
>> 1. To gather; collect
>> 2. To remove rejected members or parts from
>> "We culled the chickens so that they would not be culled"
>>=20
>> *traffic*
>> 1. passage
>> 2. stoppage
>> "Because there was so much traffic there was no traffic"
>>=20
>> *fearsome*
>> 1. Causing or capable of causing fear
>> 2. Fearful; timid.
>> "Because we weren't fearsome enough, we were fearsome"
>>=20
>> *temper*
>> 1. a tendency to become angry or out of control
>> 2. Calmness of mind or emotions; composure
>> "He had a temper because he often lost his temper"
>>=20
>> *let*
>> 1. to not prevent or hinder
>> 2. to hinder (as in tennis =B3a let=B2)
>> "Let him go to the movies; don't let him from going"
>>=20
>> *bolt*
>> 1. affix, attach, connect
>> 2. to flee
>> "They bolted because they weren't bolted."
>>=20
>> *terrific*
>> 1. Very bad or unpleasant; frightful: a terrific headache
>> 2. Very good or fine; splendid: a terrific tennis player
>> "It was a terrific experience because there was nothing terrific about
>> it."
>>=20
>> *cleave*
>> 1. to join together
>> 2. to break apart
>> "We cleaved them so tightly that no one could cleave them."
>>=20
>> I can think of an addition to Todd's list:
>>=20
>> *awful*: 1. Awe-inspiring. 2. Disdain-provoking. "The mystic thought
>> it
>> would be god-awful not to experience God's awful presence in the
>> hereafter."
>>=20
>>=20
>> and maybe also:
>>=20
>> *unlockable: *1. Not lockable. 2. Able to be unlocked. "Before we
>> locked the
>> door, it seemed unlockable; then it seemed unlockable.
>>=20
>> Any others?
>>=20
>> Dick Veit
>>=20
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> interface at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>=20
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>=20
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> interface at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>=20
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>=20
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interfac=
e at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>=20
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interfac=
e at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>=20
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:44:09 -0500
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Words that are their own opposites
--0016e654fe6e6a45bd047a4cb961
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Marshall,
I'd say the two *swipe*s (steal, pass through a card reader) constitute a
lexical ambiguity, in the same way that *bear* in "she cannot bear children=
"
does. Since the two swipes involve a quick sweeping motion of the hand, I'd
assume they have the same origin.
Dick
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Myers, Marshall <[log in to unmask]>wro=
te:
> Dick,
>
> What do you call these?
>
> He=92s going to swipe the credit card to pay the bill.
>
> Are we dealing merely with a pun?
>
> Or can we say that one interpretation is positive and the other is
> negative; that is, the word can have opposite meanings?
>
> Marshall
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0016e654fe6e6a45bd047a4cb961
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Marshall,<br><br>I'd say the two <i>swipe</i>s (steal, pass through a c=
ard reader) constitute a lexical ambiguity, in the same way that <i>bear</i=
> in "she cannot bear children" does. Since the two swipes involv=
e a quick sweeping motion of the hand, I'd assume they have the same or=
igin.<br>
<br>Dick<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:28 PM, =
Myers, Marshall <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]
edu">[log in to unmask]</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt=
0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple" lang=3D"EN-US">
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 1=
25);">Dick,</span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 1=
25);">What do you call these?</span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 1=
25);">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 He=92s going
to swipe the credit card to pay the bill.</span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 1=
25);">Are we dealing merely with a pun?</span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 1=
25);">Or can we say that one interpretation is positive and the other
is negative; that is, the word can=A0 have opposite meanings?</span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 1=
25);">Marshall</span></p></div></div></blockquote></div><br>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0016e654fe6e6a45bd047a4cb961--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:03 -0500
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Dennis Baron's article
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Bob,<br>
I thought the widespread use of the expression is interesting
in its
own right. I was curious and wanted to pass on what I found. <br>
The "dictionary" responses to it tend to reduce it to "an
emphatic
yes," which would back up Bill's point that it can be treated like a
lexical item. Like many expressions that were once metaphoric (my
allegiance to drinking is like the Pope's allegiance to Catholicism),
it has lost some of its original power. I guess I tend to read the
underlying metaphors even when their meaning has weakened. <br>
You can make the case that the grammar part of it has become
somewhat fixed as well. In other words, if someone asks me if I want a
drink (a common situation for this), I can play with the response by
asking a question in return that is meant, by analogy to "Is the Pope
Catholic" and "Does a bear defecate in the woods", to be an answer to
the question. Something like "Is Limbaugh an idiot" might require
knowing the politics of the person you are conversing with. In all your
examples, the answer would be an indirect "yes," which seems to me part
of the current pattern as well, though, as you say, we are perfectly
free to play against expectations. <br>
If you think of grammar as dynamic, then new uses for
structures are
not surprising. Frequency of use makes them more familiar. Construction
grammar pays more attention to these lower level constructions, which
sometimes have open slots. For example, X put Y in his/her/its/their
place. We wouldn't continue to use them if we didn't find them useful. <br>
a set phrase might seem inappropriate in some contexts.
Judge to
defendant: "Do you have anything to say before I sentence you?"
Defendant: "Is the Pope Catholic?" She might add a month or two to the
sentence. <br>
It seems to me hard to talk about this without including
grammar. <br>
<br>
Craig<br>
<br>
Robert Yates wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I wish I knew why this is so important to note "is the Pope
Catholic" a fixed expression.
I could have made the exchange:
Did the Yankees win the Pennant?
Do the Cubs play in Wrigley Field?
Is New York the largest city in the US?
Does champagne have bubbles?
Is it cold at the North Pole?
Is Rush Limbaugh a big fat idiot?
Did Sarah Palin resign her position as Governor of Alaska?
Substitute any of these examples in the exchanges I noted, and the actually
meaning of those questions are different because of the context. Language
is creative.
Bob Yates
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Craig Hancock <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]"><[log in to unmask]></a> 12/08/09
12:03 PM >>>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!----> Just for fun, I googeled "Is the Pope Catholic?"
and got 1,930,000
hits. It has obviously found wide distribution as a set phrase.
Craig>
Brian,
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Thanks for the heads-up on the article. I wonder if
that kind of
article was more likely in the 60's when public knowledge about
grammar was greater. Thanks for bringing it up. I will definitely take
a look at it.
As for your question: "Robert and Craig, I wonder if you would both
agree that grammar is necessary but not, by itself, sufficient to
produce meaning in language."
I agree.
</pre>
<pre wrap="">Craig
There's an argument on how the grammar of "A Modest Proposal" relates to
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">its rhetoric. This argument appears in Charles Kay
Smith's "Towards a
Participatory Rhetoric," College English, Nov. 1968, and it's also
incorporated in Smith's first-year writing textbook, "Styles and
Structures: Alternative Apporaches to College Writing." Smith doesn't
argue that grammar alone tells us us how to read "A Modest Proposal,"
but
he does suggest that the interaction of gramamr (specifically, sentence
structure) with diction and rhetoric helps create meaning by prompting
readers not to trust the narrator.
For example, Smith observes that there are many sentences in the essay
(including the opening sentence) which feature a short main clause
followed by heavily modifed subordinate clauses. He then points out that
those short main clauses feature a lot of abstract and general words
(e.g., "It is a melancholy object," at the beginning of the opener),
while
the subordiante clauses are loaded with concrete, specific words (e.g.,
"beggars," "all in rages," "importuning," in the subordinate clauses).
The
grim details in the subordinate clauses give readers reasons to distrust
the lofty assurance of the essay's narrator (or "projector") in the main
clauses.
I'm probably not doing justice to the argument, but it's worth reading
if
you're not familiar with it--and I think it could be used to support the
claim, as summarized by Craig, that 'grammar is inherntly discourse
oriented, inherently tied to cognition." For me, this claim doesn't at
all
imply that grammar alone determines meaning, but only that grammar plays
a
critical rolein determining meaning. Robert and Craig, I wonder if you
would both agree that grammar is necessary but not, by itself,
sufficient
to produce meaning in language.
Brian
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------------------------------
End of ATEG Digest - 8 Dec 2009 to 9 Dec 2009 (#2009-251)
*********************************************************
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
