# Bonding vs. bound, ...: ambiguity?



## ThomasK

I am looking for the correct term. *These words have the same roo*t, *yet*, their meanings (or connotations...) are quite different, not to say *opposites*. Sometimes very positive, maybe existential, like *bonding* (a human being cannot live without bonding), sometimes referring to a painful reality (of being un-free) like _*bound*_, though I suppose "to tie (up)" would be more common in this sense. 

But is that word ambiguous then? Can you only refer to it as a homonym (one form, various meanings)?  But is there a linguistic term adequate to refer to this? It also refers to an existential ambiguity: something can be quite essential but too much of it. As in "dual use" : certain technology can be used for war and for peace.


----------



## Circunflejo

ThomasK said:


> But is there a linguistic term adequate to refer to this?


Enantiosemy. The words themselves have several names being the most used, I think, auto-antonym.


----------



## ThomasK

Perfect!!! Thanks;

Never heard of the word, but that is what I meant! That reminded me of a thread inn the Dutch section on opposites. There another term was used, but I'll try to trace it...

In the meantime I found the term used there: *contronym*(-y ?)...  But a better word that I encountering while checking on contronym, is *autantonyms*, which I like better: it is its own's antonym. Mentioned at Oxfordreference.com...


----------



## Ben Jamin

I don't see any opposition in the meaning of the two words. They are both related to the concept of tying together. You can be tied by a rope, but also by your feelings. It's just a different way of binding. 
Words having the same root don't have to have the same kind of connotations.

But there are other words that are 100% homophone, but have opposite meanings, like Norwegian "mot", that means both "towards" and "against".


----------



## ThomasK

Well, you do agree that the meanings are at least different, "deeply different", don't you think. Bonding may be lifesaving, but binding may be deadly. You could say the phenomenon is the same but the impact is hugely diferent. See also # please.


----------



## Circunflejo

ThomasK said:


> In the meantime I found the term used there: *contronym*(-y ?)... But a better word that I encountering while checking on contronym, is *autantonyms*, which I like better: it is its own's antonym. Mentioned at Oxfordreference.com...


They are also called Janus words. We had an interesting thread on the Spanish forum about it. But those are names for the words themselves. I mean it's like polisemic/polisemy. In this case, contronym, auto-antonym and Janus words would be the former and enantiosemy the later.


----------



## ThomasK

"Janus words" is certainly a funny word, thanks!


----------



## berndf

_Janus word_ is the correct technical term, yes. But I doubt very much that your example is one. The basic meaning of _bound _and _bonding _is *not* the *opposite*, it is the *same*. The difference is only that the same thing is seen as something positive in one context and as something negative in another context.

A real _Janus word_ is, e.g., _sanction_, which can mean _allow_ or_ prohibit/penalize_, depending on context.


----------



## ThomasK

Not impossible indeed. Now, I happened to think of yin/yang and the difference between free and libertarian for example: libertarian might imply freedom without responsibility and thus be almost the opposite [aaaarrrrhhh] of freedom iand though it is clear that both refer to freedom the implementation/... of it works out in different ways. Like strict and rigid. A different, contrasting effect of the same phenomenon.

FYI: there is also enantiodromia...


----------



## Ben Jamin

ThomasK said:


> In the meantime I found the term used there: *contronym*(-y ?)...  But a better word that I encountering while checking on contronym, is *autantonyms*, which I like better: it is its own's antonym. Mentioned at Oxfordreference.com...


*Contronym *is a quite redundant duplicate of *antonym*, and an ugly one because it is a fusion of Latin and Greek.

I appreciate that *berndf* wrote almost the same as I did.


----------



## ThomasK

@Ben Jamin, @berndf : I think I have to admit that the basic meaning is the same: a 'root' meaning or something. That was also my starting point to some extent: I was wondering about the underlying similarity and the various meanings/ connotations/....

If I may (but feel free):
1. But then we can agree it is the *connotation *that is quite  different (pos. vs. pejorative), or can't we? Are those the terms you would use?  --- I also wonder how you could explain the two words while at the same time indicating the similarity and the difference in "application"...

2. *Janus words* then refer to the different implications or something, whereas autantonyms have different connotations. One last question: is this a topic somehow dealt with in semantics? Just a reference to a site might be sufficient..._ (In ThoughtCo they are considered the same... Gives more examples)_

To conclude: I quite agree as for *contronyms. *I did not like it from the start, but I did not realize why. _Autantonym _is more 'revealing" as for its meaning. (But from your point of view it might not be a real self-anti-word...)


----------



## Ben Jamin

Every word can be used in many different ways, and can have even more connotations. Even a single word can have positive or negative connotations depending on the context. Consider for example this sentence: "We have _come to the end_". The connotation of "_come to the end" _can be positive or negative depending on the situation being fortunate or unfortunate for the subject "us". If the situation is being hold hostage, the end is positive, if being happy it's negative. I think that one cannot analyse only separate words while assessing connotations.


----------



## ThomasK

I agree, but still, some connotations are "established", can therefore just be found, listed in a dictionary. "Bound to" is to some extent at least _intrinsically _negative if we consider loss of freedom a negative aspect. But quite right, even a compliment may be used sarcastically [this is not a reference to current affairs! ;-)]. We do agree that some connotations (those registered in a dictionary) are not contextual, don't we?


----------



## Ben Jamin

ThomasK said:


> I agree, but still, some connotations are "established", can therefore just be found, listed in a dictionary. "Bound to" is to some extent at least _intrinsically _negative if we consider loss of freedom a negative aspect. But quite right, even a compliment may be used sarcastically [this is not a reference to current affairs! ;-)]. We do agree that some connotations (those registered in a dictionary) are not contextual, don't we?


Sorry, English is not my native tongue, so I can't give you a good answer or comment on the intrinsic connotations of the expression "bound to". But I still will maintain that etymological proximity of two words does not guarantee that they will have similar connotations, and I don't see any need to make research on this matter. Languages develop words from concrete to abstract, and all words denoting abstract concepts have very material origin. 'To understand' meant once just 'to stand under', and 'to conspire' comes from Latin 'breath together' .


----------



## ThomasK

I don't want to take anymore time, you know. We all have our pet peeves - or what do you call it? (Rocking horse?) I had only started from an (etymological…) observation, as happens very often, and started wondering about the phenomenon. Thanks to you I can formulate the "issue" better now. 
I do love to discover how words evolve, in what quirky or weird ways. That is often amazing, sometimes revealing. I read quite some essays, for example, and lots of authors use etymology to go into concepts. Sometimes it does not work really, but I wrote a column on consolation in Dutch, based on various words and their etymology. And somehow that did make sense. (Ivan Illich by the way referred to conspiracy and its origins, and it did make sense...) But thanks for now. Your contribution(s) have been helpful!


----------



## Ben Jamin

There was once a tendency to discover the "real" or "deep" meaning of words by referring to their etymology, but I think it is mostly abandoned now.


----------



## ThomasK

Oh yes, I recognize what you mean: the "etymon" means "the real thing", literally. But that is not the view I hold. The only thing is that it can inspirational to refer to etymology. Consolation for example can be viewed as com-forting a person (make X stronger), but maybe it is more useful to just offer trust (troost in Dutch is '"consolation", it shares the root of "trust"), and simply stay with that person. I think that is interesting, to say the least.


----------



## pollohispanizado

I'm also confused about the doubt.

If you bind something, it is bound. If it is bound, there is a bond.

A romantic couple has a bond and is bound by love for one another...


----------



## ThomasK

I have come to agree that  it is rather like a game/… of connotations, rather than antonyms. The funny thing is that the couple or one of both might feel that the bond has led to some kind of bondage. Objectively/… nothing has changed but subjectively...


----------



## pollohispanizado

Applying linear logic to a set of words a posteriori is not really helpful. Obviously all these words derive from one etynom (*bʰéndʰ-), but to say that a bond leads to bondage just because the words look similar but have different meanings is stretching it.


----------



## ThomasK

Let me correct that: I only meant that bond and bondage refer to the same root/etymon, and that the funny thing is that those semantically related words have different connotations. That maybe it is just a way of *viewing *the relationship. IThe "leading" here was meant to me that the *relationship that *was once felt as a "bond" then *turned into *some kind of [perceived] "bondage". y,


----------

