# Same spelling/pronunciation, opposite meanings (auto-antonym)



## SuperXW

Hi!
Do you have this kind of experience in any language?

There are some word, phrase or sentence, accidentally have two nearly opposite explanations...
Or, two words, phrases or sentences are accidentally identical or very similar in pronunciation or spelling...
This forces us to "guess" the meaning according to the context.

*I know "a pun" has two meanings, but I'm looking for some extreme cases, that the two meanings are almost opposite.* 
For example, in Chinese:
治病 and 致病 both pronounce *zhi4bing4*. But one means "*to cure a disease*", the other means "*to cause a disease*". 
抱負 and 報復 both pronounce *bao4fu4*. But one means "*great ambition*", the other means "*petty **avenge*". 
報仇 and 報酬 both pronounce *bao4chou2*. One means "*revenge*", the other means "*reward*". (Well, not exactly opposite, but still totally different.)
So we must be very careful when using these words...

There are also pun jokes making fun on sentences:
有兩種女生找不到男朋友，一種是誰都看不上，一種是誰都看不上。
There are two kinds of girls who cannot find a boyfriend: One: *despise everyone*; second, *despised by everyone*. (Can be expressed identically in Chinese.)


----------



## bibax

There are plenty of such words in *Latin*.

The Latin prefix *in-* (im-, il-, ir-) has two meaning:

1) it is a verbal prefix that modifies the meaning of the verbs, cf. English to inscribe, to include, to imbibe, etc.

2) it is a particle (so called privative) that negates the meaning of the words, cf. English inaccurate, immature, illegal, irrational, etc.

Examples:

*infractus* = 1) (< infringere) broken, fractured 2) (priv. in + frangere) not broken, unfractured;

*infrenatus* = 1) (< infrenare) bridled, on a bridle 2) (priv. in + frenum _bridle_) without a bridle;

*instratus, intectus* = 1) covered 2) uncovered;

*insuetus* = 1) accustomed 2) unaccustomed;

inauditus, inquisitus, intentatus, invocatus, etc.


----------



## SuperXW

I remember once in another thread, the word "*unisex*" has confused us.


----------



## ESustad

"Flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing in English, even though the prefix "in-" often means "not."


----------



## Myridon

Here's a list of such words in English
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym


----------



## SuperXW

Wow, I never knew there were researches and terminologies for this! Thanks!


----------



## Tjahzi

Interesting examples there.


SuperXW said:


> 治病 and 致病 both pronounce *zhi4bing4*. But one means "*to cure a disease*", the other means "*to cause a disease*".
> 抱負 and 報復 both pronounce *bao4fu4*. But one means "*great ambition*", the other means "*petty avenge*".
> 報仇 and 報酬 both pronounce *bao4chou2*. One means "*revenge*", the other means "*reward*". (Well, not exactly opposite, but still totally different.)


I'm curious about the origin of these pairs. Are the graphs/words indeed true homophones that have evolved into such over time, or do some of them occur from tone sandhi in this given context?

Regarding other languages, if we are talking about two antonyms "accidentally" ending up as homophones (rather than a single word having antonymical meaning in different contexts), I believe those only truly occur in tonal languages.


----------



## SuperXW

Tjahzi said:


> Interesting examples there.
> I'm curious about the origin of these pairs. Are the graphs/words indeed true homophones that have evolved into such over time, or do some of them occur from tone sandhi in this given context?


They are not "true homophones" that have evolved into such overtime, however, they are not from "tone sandhi" either.
The meanings of Chinese are attached to the characters (the "graphs"), not their pronunciations. Multiple characters may have a same pronunciation. (Usually, two different characters form up a "word". This narrow down the chance of "homophones".) And, the pronunciations change from time to time, from place to place, but the writings rarely changes.
When I showed you their sounds, they were just the standard pronunciations set by the current government, based on Beijing dialect. This became standard Mandarin, the universal spoken language in China. 
In Mandarin, those words happen to pronounce exactly the same.
But when writing them down, people would realize they were totally different.


Tjahzi said:


> Regarding other languages, if we are talking about two antonyms "accidentally" ending up as homophones (rather than a single word having antonymical meaning is different contexts), I believe those only truly occur on tonal languages.


I also think those homophone words could be rare. But how about phrases or sentence? I suppose there would be some coincidences caused by pronunciations or grammar.


----------



## origumi

A Hebrew example - root q-l-s קלס. It means both to despise/denigrate and to laud/praise.

The reason is historical: the former is native Hebrew, the latter was borrowed from Hellenistic Greek καλὸς (beautiful).


----------



## fdb

In classical Arabic there are whole books of “words with opposite meanings“. The technical term is ʼaḍdād “opposites”.


----------



## Tjahzi

SuperXW said:


> They are not "true homophones" that have evolved  into such overtime, however, they are not from "tone sandhi" either.[...]


My point was that while, for instance in the case of your first example, both 治 and 病 are pronounced *bing4* in these contexts (preceding 病, that is), there probably is or has been a context in which they were pronounced differently. As such, my question was whether the homophony has evolved over time through the initially distinct pronunciations of 治 and 病 merging, or if the pronunciations of these two are indeed still distinguishable when isolated/in another context.


----------



## ahmedcowon

fdb said:


> In classical Arabic there are whole books of “words with opposite meanings“. The technical term is ʼaḍdād “opposites”.



That's true, but today many of these words are only used to refer to one of the two meanings.

Here are some examples of ʼaḍdād:

جلل means "great" and "worthless"
باع means  "sell" and "buy"
شرى also means "sell" and "buy"
مولى means "master" and "slave"
طرب means "joy" and "sorrow"
مأتم means "gathering at time of mourning" and "gathering at time of celebration"
غريم means "lender" and "borrower"
ظن means "certainty" and "uncertainty"


----------



## sakvaka

*Finnish*: (at least what I could come up with)

- _vähän_ can mean both "a little" (= some, a few) and "little" (= not much/many, few, hardly any)
- _vähän_ also means "quite, a lot, really" in some exclamations (_Vähän siistii! _How cool is that!)
- _lainata_ means both "lend sth to sb" and "borrow sth from sb". _Lainaan kynän_ can mean both "I'm borrowing a pen (from someone)" and "I'm lending a pen (to someone)
- _Älä muuta sano!_ (Tell me about it!) literally means _Don't say anything else!_, but also the expression _Sanos muuta! _(Say something else!) can be used in that sense.
- there are some dialect-related contronyms, _tuima_ means "too salty" in western dialects but "little salty" in eastern dialects


----------



## fdb

Chinese 眀 míng ‘bright’, 冥 míng ‘dark’ (same pronunciation, but different characters). In Vietnamese both are written minh.


----------



## SuperXW

sakvaka said:


> *Finnish*: (at least what I could come up with)
> 
> - _lainata_ means both "lend sth to sb" and "borrow sth from sb". _Lainaan kynän_ can mean both "I'm borrowing a pen (from someone)" and "I'm lending a pen (to someone)
> - _Älä muuta sano!_ (Tell me about it!) literally means _Don't say anything else!_, but also the expression _Sanos muuta! _(Say something else!) can be used in that sense.
> - there are some dialect-related contronyms, _tuima_ means "too salty" in western dialects but "little salty" in eastern dialects



Wow, the same in Chinese! The verb 借 can mean both "lend" and "borrow". 我借了一支笔 can mean both "I borrowed a pen" or "I lent a pen"! When we were learning English, the teachers always asked us to exercise on distinguishing them. 

But most Chinese will misunderstand the expression "Tell me about it!" We will really start to talk. 

There are also many dialect-related contronyms. 窝心 means "feel wronged; grievance" in Mainland China, but "feel very considerate, caring" in Taiwan...

I remember another one: 全部 "all" accidentally have the same pronunciation of 全部 "all-not", both "quan2bu4". Therefore, sometimes we say _ta1men0 quan2bu4 chu1qu4_, others could not be sure if it means "They all go out" or "They all don't go out"...


fdb said:


> Chinese 眀 míng ‘bright’, 冥 míng ‘dark’ (same pronunciation, but different characters). In Vietnamese both are written minh.


Luckily, modern Chinese don't use 明/冥 independently to mean "bright/dark" anymore. If Vietnamese keep their pronunciations, it could be a trouble~


----------



## Ghabi

Hi! We did talk a bit about this topic in this thread in the Chinese forum.


----------



## SuperXW

I think that topic is a little bit different. That topic discusses OPPOSITE EXPRESSIONS with SAME MEANINGS, isn't it?  I'm now looking for SAME EXPRESSIONS with OPPOSITE MEANINGS.


----------



## origumi

ahmedcowon said:


> That's true, but today many of these words are only used to refer to one of the two meanings.
> 
> Here are some examples of ʼaḍdād:
> ...


Is there a any typical reason for this phenomenon in Arabic, or each word has its own story?


----------



## ahmedcowon

In some Arabic dialects, negative imperative is formed by putting "ma"  in front of the "jussive verb". But in Egyptian Arabic, this form gives the positive imperative.

For Example: "ma teftaħ el-bab" means "Don't open the door" in some Arabic dialects but it means "Open the door" in the Egyptian dialect.


origumi said:


> Is there a any typical reason for this phenomenon in Arabic, or each word has its own story?



There are two main reasons for this phenomenon:
1- The two opposite meanings share the same root, so maybe one of the words formed can give the two opposite meanings.
2- The word is used in an era to mean something but used in another era to mean the opposite.


----------



## fdb

ahmedcowon said:


> That's true, but today many of these words are only used to refer to one of the two meanings.



I agree.


ahmedcowon said:


> ظن means "certainty" and "uncertainty"



To tell the truth, most of the _ʼaḍdād _listed in the books I mentioned are mere pedantry. ظن _ḍann_ actually just means “opinion”, so it can in principle be a ceartain opinion or an uncertain opinion.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Tjahzi said:


> My point was that while, for instance in the case of your first example, both 治 and 病 are pronounced *bing4*  in these contexts (preceding 病, that is), there probably is or has been  a context in which they were pronounced differently. As such, my  question was whether the homophony has evolved over time through the  initially distinct pronunciations of 治 and 病 merging, or if the  pronunciations of these two are indeed still distinguishable when  isolated/in another context.


Mandarin  致病 zhi4 bing4 "to cause disease" < Middle Chinese *ȶì biaŋ < Old Chinese *tjed bʰiaŋ
Mandarin 治病 zhi4 bing4 "to cure disease" < Middle Chinese *ɖi biaŋ < Old Chinese *dʰi̯əɡ bʰiaŋ
They were not homophones initially.  They gradually evolved into homophones over time.  In modern Mandarin, 治 zhi4 "to cure" and 致 zhi4 "to cause" are pronounced zhi4 in all contexts, including in isolation.  They are true homophones (heterographs).


----------



## bibax

Similarly in Latin, the verbal prefix in- originates from the PIE **en-* (cf. Greek en-, Slavic v- < *ven, Old English on-) and the privative prefix in- originates from PIE **ne-* (cf. Greek a-/an-, Slavic ne-, English -un). Probably only in Latin the two prefixes gradually evolved into homophones over time. (The Old English on-, cf. onliehtan "to enlighten", seems to be extinct.)

In Latin potentially all participles and adjectives derived from the verbs with the prefix in- can have opposite or nearly opposite meanings simultaneously.

However not all verbs were used with the verbal prefix in-, and not all derived participles and adjectives were used with the privative in-. This fact significantly reduces the number of the possible auto-antonyms. For example: incredibilis means only incredible as the prefixed verb incredere is not attested.

Also some instances are not pure auto-antonyms as many verbs with the prefix in- have (slightly or completely) different meaning than the corresponding unprefixed verbs. For example:

scribere = to write, inscribere = to inscribe;
inscriptus (< inscribere) = inscribed, inscriptus (priv. in- + scriptus < scribere) = unwritten;

Still there are some pure auto-antonyms. For example both verbs mutare and immutare have the same meaning: to change; immutatus means changed (< immutare) or unchanged (priv. in- + mutatus < mutare). But immutabilis was always understood as immutable, changeable is mutabilis.


----------



## sakvaka

Another hit: Italian _intiepidire_, Finnish _haalentaa_, means either "warm up" or "cool down". See the corresponding WR entry.


----------



## SuperXW

Skatinginbc said:


> Mandarin  致病 zhi4 bing4 "to cause disease" < Middle Chinese *ȶì biaŋ < Old Chinese *tjed bʰiaŋ
> Mandarin 治病 zhi4 bing4 "to cure disease" < Middle Chinese *ɖi biaŋ < Old Chinese *dʰi̯əɡ bʰiaŋ
> They were not homophones initially.  They gradually evolved into homophones over time.  In modern Mandarin, 治 zhi4 "to cure" and 致 zhi4 "to cause" are pronounced zhi4 in all contexts, including in isolation.  They are true homophones (heterographs).


So they were different in ancient times? Now they pronounce the same, what a shame~
By the way, I really admire your knowledge on middle Chinese. Very few people knows these today.


----------



## vince

There are examples in English like "awesome" and "awful", "terrific" and "terrible".

But what about the difference between "this car is shit" (bad car) and "this car is the shit" (amazing car), is this the same phenomenon?


----------



## TitTornade

Hi,
In French :
"louer" = to rent or to rent out
"hôte" =  host or guest
"apprendre" = to teach or to learn


----------



## Geo.

In English:-  *raze* vs *raise*

*raze* = to destroy, (i.e. knock down, demolish) a building, or town, etc.  E.g. ‘The house was _razed_ to the ground in the fire last night’.

With _raze_ pronounced the same — in most dialects — as _raise_.

*raise*: (amongst other definitions) to build, (i.e. erect, construct), etc.  E.g. ‘A new house will be _raised_ on the site of the old one’.

With regard to government procedure:- 

In American English, _*to table* (a discussion, proposal, bill, etc.) _means_ to postpone, or even suspend it altogether_, for the time being.

In British & Commonwealth English, however, *to table *_(the same business as above) _means _to address it now, without further delay_.

The word _*quite*_ —_ in certain contexts_ — can have a near opposite meaning in British English vs in American English. 

For instance, on a British survey:-
*How concerned are you about the  Scottish Independence Referendum, scheduled for 18th September 2014, and its potential effect on the British economy?

Please tick only one of the following that best describes your feelings regarding the matter:-  

1.) __ I am very concerned.  

2.) __ I am quite concerned.  

3.) __ I am not concerned. *​In American English, the choice between the first and the second option, may well seem to be no choice at all, the both meaning _‘extremely_ concerned’.

In British English, however —_ in this context _— the first means *‘I am extremely concerned’*, whereas the second means *‘I am not extremely concerned’*.

This is because, in this case, _‘very’_ is synonymous with _‘most_ (concerned)’, whilst here, _‘quite’_ means _‘only moderately_ (concerned)’_,_ i.e. _‘sort of_ (concerned)’.

(It is only in the third option, that _both _American and British English mean *‘I am not concerned at all’*).

In British English the term *Public School* — (e.g. Eton College, Radley College, Winchester College, Harrow, _et al._) — means what Americans would call a _Private School_; (the word ‘college’ meaning a secondary school in the UK). The use of the word _‘public’ — _in this context, in British English — means to be educated _in public_, i.e. _with others_, as opposed to in _private _by a tutor. 

In American English, however, *Public School *means what in British English would be called a _State-funded school,_ i.e. _open to all_.  In this case, the American use of the word  _‘public’_ means _open to the public at large,_ versus American_ ‘Private School’_, meaning _not part of publicly funded schools_.

In British English the word *fanny* refers to _a woman's ‘pudenda’,_ whereas in American English, it refers to _the ‘anus__’,__ (of either gender)._ Whilst not exact opposites, a woman _would_ be facing the opposite way.  

Thus, the American term _fanny-pack_ — which in Britain is called a _bum-bag_ — can certainly catch  an Englishman off guard! (I was over here for years before I became familiar with much of American speech).


----------



## Geo.

In Italian, _*«Ciao»*_ — a corruption of the Venetian _«s-ciào Su»_ i.e._ ‘I am your slave’_ — can be used to mean both *‘Hello’ *_&_* ‘Good-bye’*_._


----------



## Awwal12

Cannot think about anything in Russian right now. In Ukrainian, however, some Old Russian prefixes merged, resulting in some peculiar cases.
So, уносити (wnosyty) can mean both "to bring in"/"to carry into" (< O.R. vnositi) and "to take away"/"to carry away" (< O.R. unositi); pretty close to the opposite.


----------



## Geo.

In Austria (_in particular_), in much of southern Germany (_especially Bavaria_), and in many of the lands of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire; variations (_in their respective languages_) of the _*Latin* word _*Servus *— to mean  _‘I am your servant’_ or _‘At your service’_ — can be used as both _*‘Hello’ *&* ‘Good-bye’*, _(just as Italian_ «Ciao» _is used with its similar meaning, in the same way). 

The common variant forms of Latin S_ervus _in the respective languages or dialects that use it are:-  Slovak: _Servus_, Croatian: _Servus_ or _Serbus_, Hungarian: _Szervusz — (as well as several other forms in Magyar)_; Polish: _Serwus_, Austro-Bavarian: _Servus_, Romanian: _Servus_, Slovene: _Serbus_, Czech: _Servus_, Ukrainian: _Сервус_, and in Tyrolean & Italian (_viz_ Alto Adige): _Servas or Seavas_.


Awwal12 said:


> Cannot think about anything in Russian right now. In Ukrainian, however, some Old Russian prefixes merged, resulting in some peculiar cases.
> So, уносити (wnosyty) can mean both "to bring in"/"to carry into" (< O.R. vnositi) and "to take away"/"to carry away" (< O.R. unositi); pretty close to the opposite.



There is something similar in American vs British English with _*‘to bring’ *vs* ‘to take’*_, though they actually mean the near opposite in most contexts. Yet in British English, one will, for instance, offer ‘_to take_’_ something_ (to a picnic, a party, etc).  Where in American English, one will _generally_ offer _“to bring” something_ (to the same). Hence American _B.Y.O.B._ i.e. _“Bring your own bottle.”
_
An example of the proper use _in both British & American English _might be:-  _‘I feel rather ill; please, “take” the food away when you leave, and “bring” me back a glass of water when you return’. 
_(No-one could interchange these two verbs, _in the above,_ to render it as:- _‘__I feel rather ill; please, “bring” the food away when you leave, and “take” me back a glass of water when you return’)_.


----------



## Geo.

In most cases *‘high’, *for instance _‘high mountains’_, means *‘tall’*, yet in some cases such as _‘high seas’,_ it meant *‘deep’*, well into the 1900s.  (To-day however, it is now used to mean _‘International Waters’. _

See Online Etymology Dictionary:-
_High seas first attested late 14c., with sense (also found in the Latin cognate) of "deep" as well as "tall" (cognates: Old English heahflod "deep water," also Old Persian baršan "height, depth").
_​See The Law Dictionary:- _ Altum Mare _(Latin)
_The high sea, or seas. The deep sea. Super altum mare, on the high seas._​


----------



## Messquito

[Moderator's Note: Merged with a previous thread that deals with a similar topic]
In Chinese, I've found one example, 買([maɪ̯3]=to buy) and 賣([maɪ̯4]=to sell), in this case, these antonyms are only different in tones, which can be a problem even for native speakers, let alone those who are learning Chinese.

Edit: another example I found, 授([ʂoʊ̯4]=to give) and 受([ʂoʊ̯4]=to receive). There is absolutely no difference in quality of sound in these two characters, but the good news is, 授 is rarely used in modern Mandarin (only in idioms), and both of them usually appear with another collocated character, which makes it far less confusing. e.g. 男女授受不親 (a female and a male shall not give and receive intimately), 授 appears in words like 教授、講授、傳授, etc. and 受 appears in words like 接受、承受、受罰, etc.

In Thai, I've found one example, too:
ไกล ([klaj1]=to be far)
ใกล้ ([klaj3]=to be near)
They are only different in tones, too.

In English, I've found a prefix example:
hypo-=below
hyper-=above

So how does this happen in your language? Does it exist at all?
Note: I'm talking about *similar*, not necessarily the same


----------



## ilocas2

In Czech *slaný* (= salty) and *sladký* (= sweet) are similar.


----------



## frugnaglio

sakvaka said:


> *Finnish*: _lainata_ means both "lend sth to sb" and "borrow sth from sb". _Lainaan kynän_ can mean both "I'm borrowing a pen (from someone)" and "I'm lending a pen (to someone)





SuperXW said:


> Wow, the same in Chinese! The verb 借 can mean both "lend" and "borrow". 我借了一支笔 can mean both "I borrowed a pen" or "I lent a pen"! When we were learning English, the teachers always asked us to exercise on distinguishing them.



*Italian:* Similar thing, but with renting (like in English and French), not with lending: both _noleggiare_ and _affittare_ (used for different kinds of objects) mean “to rent” with the two meanings it has in English: to let (out), and to pay for the use of something rented.



TitTornade said:


> Hi,
> In French :
> "louer" = to rent or to rent out
> "hôte" =  host or guest *Italian:* _ospite_ = host or guest
> "apprendre" = to teach or to learn *Italian:* _imparare_ = to learn, but also to teach (only dialectal and formally incorrect)



_Alto_ means “high, tall” in the general sense of “having a great vertical dimension”, and hence also “deep”. Its opposite _basso_ behaves the same way, meaning both “low” and “shallow”. So for example _fondale basso_ (low seafloor) can mean both “shallow seafloor” and “deep seafloor”.

English has “to sanction” meaning “to impose a penalty on something” or “to give official permission for something”


----------



## 810senior

Only to come up with few instances.

In Japanese:
煮詰まるnitsumaru : to get close to a conclusion vs to get stuck in problems. (strictly speaking the latter is the misuse of it but still used to a certain degree)
やばいyabai : dangerous, hazardous vs marvelous, super, great (the latter is a somewhat colloquial, vulgar)


----------



## apmoy70

Greek:

*«Ἄβιος» ắbiŏs* (masc. & fem.) --> (1) with privative prefix *«ἀ-» a-* = _without a living, starving_ (2) with copulative (intensive) *«ἀ-» a-* = _wealthy_ (*«ἀ-» a-* + masc. *«βίος» bíŏs* --> _life, manner of life, mode of life_ < PIE *gʷeih₃w- _to live_ cf Skt. जीव (jivah), _life_, Lat. vīvere).
*«Ἄβρομος» ắbrŏmŏs* (masc. & fem.) --> (1) with privative *«ἀ-» a-* = _noiseless_ (2) with copulative (intens.) *«ἀ-» a-* = _noisy_ (*«ἀ-» a-* + Classical v. (onomatopoeic) *«βρέμω» brémō* --> _to roar, grumble_).
*«Ἀπεσθίω» ăpĕstʰíō* --> (1) _to eat, gnaw off_, (2) _to leave off eating_ (prep. *«ἀπό» ăpó* --> _far away, away from_ < PIE *h₂epo- _from_ cf Skt. अप (apa), _away_, Hitt. āppa-, _after_, Lat. ab + Classical v. *«ἔδω» édō*, alt. *«ἔσθω» éstʰō* & *«ἐσθίω» ĕstʰíō* --> _to eat_ < PIE *h₁ed- _to eat_ cf Skt. अत्ति (atti), _to eat_, Hitt. edmi-, Proto-Slavic *ěsti > Russ. есть, Cz. jíst, Svk. jest, Bul. ям, BCS јести/jesti).
*«Αὐΐᾰχος» auíăkʰŏs* (masc. & fem.) --> (1) with privative *«ἀ-» a-* = _noiseless_ (2) with copulative (intens.) *«ἀ-» a-* = _noisy_ (*«ἀ-» a-* + Classical v. *«ἰάχω» ĭắkʰō* --> _to cry aloud, shout, shriek, resound, roar_ < PIE *u(e)h₂gʰ- _sound, noise, cry_ cf Lat. vāgīre, _to wail_).
MoGr *«λιπόσαρκος»* [liˈposarkos] (masc.) --> (1) when the *«λιπο-»* [lipo-] part is the combinatory aphetic from *«ἐλλιπο-» ĕllipŏ-* of the Classical nominal *«ἐλλῐπής» ĕllĭpḗs* --> _inadequate, deficient_ = _skinny, scrawny_ (prefix & prep. *«ἐν» ĕn* --> _in_ < PIE *h₁en- _in_ cf Latin in, Proto-Germanic *in + zero-grade *«λιπο-» lipŏ-* of v. *«λείπω» leípō* --> _to leave, depart_ < PIE *leikʷ- _to leave behind_ cf Lat. linquere, Proto-Germanic *līhwaną > Ger. leihan + Classical 3rd declension fem. noun *«σάρξ» sắrk͡s* (nom. sing.), *«σᾰρκός» sărkós* (gen. fem.) --> _flesh, piece of meat_ < PIE *turḱ- _to cut_ cf Av. ϑβarəs- _to cut_, Ir. torc, _boar_); (2) when the *«λιπο-»* [lipo-] part is the combinatory aphetic from *«ἐλλιπο-» ĕllipŏ-* of the Classical nominal *«ἔλλῐπος» éllĭpŏs* --> _greasy_ = _overweight_ (prefix & prep. *«ἐν» ĕn* --> _in_  + Classical neut. noun *«λίπος» lípŏs* --> _fat_ < PIE *leip- _to stick_ cf Skt. रेपस् (repas), _stain, dirt_ + Classical 3rd declension fem. noun *«σάρξ» sắrk͡s *(see above)).
MoGr *«αποσκλήρυνση»* [apoˈskliɾinsi] (fem.) --> (1) the calqued word from the Ger. Enthärtung = _demineralization/softening of water_ (prep. *«ἀπό» ăpó* --> _far away, away from_ (see above) + 3rd declension fem. noun *«σκλήρυνσις» sklḗrŭnsis* (fem.) --> _hardening_ < Classical deponent v. *«σκέλλομαι» skéllŏmai* --> _to dry up, parch, wither, languish, grow tired, harden_ < PIE *skelh₁- _to dry up, wither_ cf Proto-Germanic *skala- _thin, shallow_ > Eng. shallow); (2) the inherited word from ancient Greek = _hardening up, mineralization_


----------



## ilocas2

In English *friend* and *fiend*


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings


ilocas2 said:


> In English *friend* and *fiend*


Not really relevant, as these are separate words with different etymologies (cf. Germ. _Freund_ and _Feind _["enemy"]). The same applies to Geo.'s example (#27) of "raze" (> Latin _radere_) and "raise" (> Gothic and Old Norse, _raisjan_ or something of the kind).
Σ


----------



## Encolpius

*Hungarian*
words of direction: itt - ott (here-there), ide - oda, erre - arra...
öröm (joy) - üröm (sorrow) - there are other word games I cannot remember now


----------



## ThomasK

Has this intriguing phenomenon been dealt with in semantics somehow/somewhere? I'd be interested... It looks like a homonym, but the fact that there are opposite meanings seems quite strange... But I suddenly realize the answer is in the title: *auto-antonym*, or also *contronym*.


----------



## pomar

sakvaka said:


> Another hit: Italian _intiepidire_, Finnish _haalentaa_, means either "warm up" or "cool down". See the corresponding WR entry.


These are not different meanings in Italian (it is the English translation that makes you think so). "Tiepido" means lukewarm or tepid, halfway between warm and cool, and "intiepidire" means "bring something to a lukewarm temperature".


----------



## eno2

I have  an active thread running with Dutch contronyms.


----------



## Messquito

豪(hao2) enormous
毫(hao2) tiny


----------



## Testing1234567

冬天：能穿多少穿多少。夏天：能穿多少穿多少
Winter: wear as many as you can. Summer: wear as less as you can.

This is because "多少" can mean "how many → as many as" when interpreted as one word, but can also be interpreted separately as "多 to what an extent 少 less/few".


----------



## Xavier61

Awwal12 said:


> Cannot think about anything in Russian right now. In Ukrainian, however, some Old Russian prefixes merged, resulting in some peculiar cases.
> So, уносити (wnosyty) can mean both "to bring in"/"to carry into" (< O.R. vnositi) and "to take away"/"to carry away" (< O.R. unositi); pretty close to the opposite.


In Russian the prepositions "кроме" and "помимо" apparently can have opposite meanings, depending on context: "except" and "as well as, in addition to".
Они уже обо всём переговорили, кроме любви. They had already spoken about everything, except love.
Кроме тетрадей я купил ещё и книжки. As well as the notebooks, I also bought booklets.
Also, in Russian, the Greek word άγγελος has evolve to 2 similar words with opposite meanings: "ангел" (angel) and "аггел" (devil, evil spirit).

In Latin, "hospes,-itis"  meant "host" and "guest".
In Spanish
Arrendar, alquilar: to rent or to rent out. This seems to be common to many languages. Maybe the 2 meanings are not really opposite.
"Aprender" meaning both "to learn" and "to teach" is marginally used and considered vulgar.
The same with "caer" : "to fall" but sometimes, when used transitively (" me empujó y me cayó") it means "to knock down", marginal or vulgar usage.



frugnaglio said:


> _Alto_ means “high, tall” in the general sense of “having a great vertical dimension”, and hence also “deep”. Its opposite _basso_ behaves the same way, meaning both “low” and “shallow”. So for example _fondale basso_ (low seafloor) can mean both “shallow seafloor” and “deep seafloor”.


In Latin "altus" was also used to express depth: "flumen quinque pedes altum", "a river five feet deep". As you point out, the general meaning is “having a certain vertical dimension”.


----------



## SuperXW

Chinese: 
切记 / 切忌
Both pronounce: qie4 ji4
切记：must remember to
切忌：must not to


----------



## Messquito

在zai4(in doing) v.s. 再zai4(further)
Not necessarily opposite, but could mean opposite things in this context:
A: 房間可以不要那麼亂好嗎？ How about keeping your room tidy and clean?
B: 我在整理啦！ I am cleaning my room! (already)
v.s.
B: 我再整理啦！I will clean my room! (not yet)


----------



## Frank78

German:

abdecken - cover and uncover
anhalten - stop and continue
aufheben - keep and abolish
ausbauen - disassemble and extend/develop/ fit out
Bundesstaat - individual state in a federal state and the federal state itself
einstellen - arise and stop
lassen - keep and leave out
Platzangst - agoraphobia (scientific/educated speaker) and claustrophobia (colloquial)
übersehen - fail to see something and have a view of something as a whole
umfahren - bypass/circuit and knock over
teilen - divide and share
Untiefe - shoal (nautic/educated speaker) and great depth (colloquial)
verabschieden - adopt and say goodbye


----------



## Messquito

在考慮 I'm considering. (>Maybe yes.)
再考慮 I'll consider it next time. (>Polite way to reject.)


----------



## Frieder

Frank78 said:


> umfahren - bypass/circuit and knock over


These are autoantonyms but they are not homophones:

Um*fah*ren = to bypass
*Um*fahren = to knock over

So, do they count?


----------



## Messquito

上課
1. take class (student)
2. give class (teacher)


----------



## Kotlas

Messquito said:


> 上課
> 1. take class (student)
> 2. give class (teacher)


In Russian, we have a similar verb: учить
It means both "learn" (i.e. be a student of something) and "teach" (i.e. be a teacher of something)


----------



## eno2

On terminology: 


> The terms "autantonym" and "contronym" were coined by Joseph T. Shipley in 1960 and Jack Herring in 1962, respectively. An auto-antonym is alternatively called an *antagonym*, *Janus word* (after the Roman god with two faces),[2][5] *enantiodrome*, *self-antonym*, *antilogy*,


Auto-antonym - Wikipedia

I prefer 'contronym' and 'Janus word'. 

It's recent terminology...1960. Surprising.


----------



## Kotlas

In English, the noun "natural" may be considered an auto-antonym/contronym; it has two opposite meanings (one of them being obsolete though).
1. A person having an innate talent for a particular task or activity; extremely capable
2. (obsolete) A person born with a learning disability; an imbecile, idiot


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings all



Kotlas said:


> In Russian, we have a similar verb: учить



Fascinating. In a similar context, one observes that the German verb _lehren_ = 'to teach', while the Anglo-Saxon and modern English _learn_ = 'to study'.

Curiosity is aroused.

Σ


----------



## Kotlas

Scholiast said:


> Fascinating. In a similar context, one observes that the German verb _lehren_ = 'to teach', while the Anglo-Saxon and modern English _learn_ = 'to study'.


There is also the German verb _lernen_ (which means _learn _in English).


----------



## Scholiast

привет! once more



Kotlas said:


> There is also the German verb _lernen_ (which means _learn _in English)



Quite right, and I had forgotten that.

But in English, and in places in Latin and Greek, there are obvious cognates with minor variations between Intransitive and Transitive Forms:

For example:

fall/fell (a tree)—cf. Germ. _fallen_/_fällen_
rise/raise (a hand, a standard, Cain)
droop/drop (a spoon, your trousers)
sit/set (= _sitzen_/_setzen_)

More where that came from.

Σ


----------



## Kotlas

Scholiast said:


> But in English, and in places in Latin and Greek, there are obvious cognates with minor variations between Intransitive and Transitive Forms.   For example:
> fall/fell (a tree)—cf. Germ. _fallen_/_fällen_
> rise/raise (a hand, a standard, Cain)
> droop/drop (a spoon, your trousers)
> sit/set (= _sitzen_/_setzen_)


Right, and also
lie/lay (cf. Germ. liegen/legen) and others.
But the thread is about the words with the _same_ spelling, so I guess all these examples won't qualify for it.


----------



## Scholiast

@Kotlas

All granted, your expert-hood in philology is quite admirable—yes, of course 'lay'/'lie' constitute another example.
My response is in this sense relevant, that even native English-speakers do not sufficiently recognise this fine distinction.

I confess to being a pedant, but only because I love the language of the Old Testament (in the KJV), of Milton, and indeed of the Russian Liturgies, when I can sing them.

Never yet had the chance to sing the Racmanninov _Vespers_, but by heavens I should love to—I have, as a choral bass, a bottom Bb...

Σ


----------



## ThomasK

Dutch *leren* (to learn, teach), *lenen* (borrow, lend) - are disambiguated by the preposition we add (aan [to], van [from])... But of course, the interesting thing is that they belong to the same act(ivity).


----------



## ThomasK

ahmedcowon said:


> That's true, but today many of these words are only used to refer to one of the two meanings.
> 
> Here are some examples of ʼaḍdād:
> 
> جلل means "great" and "worthless"
> باع means  "sell" and "buy"
> شرى also means "sell" and "buy"
> مولى means "master" and "slave"
> طرب means "joy" and "sorrow"
> مأتم means "gathering at time of mourning" and "gathering at time of celebration"
> غظن means "certainty" and "uncertainty"


I'd like to hear more about these. The selling and buying: same act of course, two sides (we use _kopen_ and _verkopen_), but great/ worthless, joy/sorrow, the two gatherings: that seems strange. Can anyone enlighten me and us?


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings afresh



ThomasK said:


> Dutch *leren* (to learn, teach), *lenen* (borrow, lend) - are disambiguated by the preposition we add (aan [to], van [from])... But of course, the interesting thing is that they belong to the same act(ivity).



Does not the addition of the preposition (_aan_/_van_) make these into 'phrasal' verbs?

And (irreverently):

جلل means "great" and "worthless"
باع means "sell" and "buy"
شرى also means "sell" and "buy"
مولى means "master" and "slave"
طرب means "joy" and "sorrow"
مأتم means "gathering at time of mourning" and "gathering at time of celebration"
غظن means "certainty" and "uncertainty"​
This reminds me of the old joke that every word in Arabic means something, its opposite, and part of a camel.

No disrespect intended! And on a more serious note, in fact I can think of similar things in Latin (_hospes_ means both 'host' and 'guest') and Greek (where ξένος corresponds exactly with this Latin). 

Σ


----------



## ThomasK

Those are not phrasal verbs, I think, as "aan" and "van" are prepositions here. They both have a prepositional object rather. Don't they correspond to the words looked for then?

I am aware of _hospes/ hostis_, and I see the link an dthe evolution, but it is not very clear for the ones I asked about..


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more

ThomasK cannot mean


ThomasK said:


> hospes/ hostis


...for these are completely different words. But another (Latin) word which fits the bill is _impotens_, which may mean either 'imposingly powerful' or 'powerless'.

Σ


----------



## ThomasK

Well, there is the English _host_ and the Latin _hostilis_... And Etymonline.com points out: ie. ghos-ti is found in" Euxine; guest; hospice; hospitable; hospital; hospitality; hospodar; host (n.1) "person who receives guests;" host (n.2) "multitude;" hostage; hostel; hostile; hostility; hostler; hotel; Xenia; xeno-; xenon". So I did not invent it...


----------



## Messquito

Eng. _black_ and Fr. _blanc_ (white) come from the same root but have the opposite meanings.
They come from the same root as flame(fl- vs. bl-), while _blanc_ refers to the color of the bright shining flame, _black_ refers to the color of materials burnt down by the flame.


----------



## Kotlas

Russian:
*залечить*  [zəlɪˈchit'] - means opposite things; for example,
залечить (рану ['ranu]) - to heal (the wound)
залечить (до смерти ['dosmerti]) - to do harm by treatment (fatally)


----------



## Messquito

I think in Chinese 於 can be an example,
In 無視於、無濟於事、於事無補、子禽問於子貢、於心不忍..., it means "to", which is by default active.
In 郤克傷於矢、先發制人，後發制於人..., it means "by", which is passive. This one is mostly in old texts. I can think of any modern examples.


----------



## Dymn

*Spanish*:

pasar a la historia: 
1. to go down in history (adquiring a great importance)
2. to lose its relevance and currency (thus becoming history, part of the past)


----------



## eno2

Historia is used a contronym. Same with history. They use it sometimes -engrossing them- in the first meaning, for events so trivial that I automatically take them in the second meaning.


----------



## Awwal12

That, however, also depends on which verbs are used; the coincidence may yet not happen, like in Russian: войти в историю - to go/walk into history, to enter history; уйти в историю - to go/walk away into history, to leave into history.


----------



## eno2

> *It would be hard to substitute memory for history in idioms such as 'but that's history now', or 'you're history!'* - 'but that's memory' would immediately imply a continuing resonance, a continuing ability to command attention in present-day minds.
> 
> Memory, History, Nation


----------



## djmc

Terrible or terrific by origin means inducing fear. A terrible accident for example. In English terrific normally and colloquially means good. Foe example "the chocolates were terrific, thank you very much". This is sometimes nuanced, for example when one sees that the cellar has flooded one might say "That's terrific, just what I wanted". In French terrible is used in a similar way in some respects. One may not say of something one likes that it is terrible but one may say "C'était pas terrible" if you don't like or didn't like something, for instance the weather.


----------



## j-p-c

There was recently a long, heated discussion about the fact that some English locutions can be grammatically interpreted to mean different, or in some cases opposite things. The conclusion was that it was an inescapable pitfall of the way English aggregates words, and can not happen in German, for instance. [See: Density altitude (aviation)]


----------



## Messquito

English and perhaps many other European languages (sometimes with the k replacing c):
micro-=small
macro-=big


----------



## Maharaj

Messquito said:


> 上課
> 1. take class (student)
> 2. give class (teacher)


'Class lena(take)' and 'Class dena(give)' both mean the same in Hindi meaning to teach.


----------



## Xavier61

In Latin, "hospes" can mean "host" or "guest".
In Old Spanish, "huésped" meant also "host" or "guest".


----------



## Gavril

_*bill*_:

1) A piece of paper that can be used to pay for things (_one-dollar bill, _etc.)

or

2) A piece of paper containing a demand for payment (e.g. _My electricity bill just arrived in the mail_)


In Britain (and perhaps everywhere except the US), the more common term for meaning #1 seems to be _note _/_ banknote._


----------



## Messquito

I love that example!
So that means "I have a $50 bill" could mean either you have a note of $50 or you owe someone $50, right?

How about a *ticket* (that just came to me)? When I say "I have this 50$ ticket", does that mean I've bought a ticket worth $50 or I've received a fine of $50? Or could it be both?


----------



## Gavril

Messquito said:


> I love that example!
> So that means "I have a $50 bill" could mean either you have a note of $50 or you owe someone $50, right?



No, generally "$50 bill" means a banknote (for me, at least).

If I owed someone $50, I would say "I have a bill for $50" instead, or I would insert a modifier that explained what the bill was for ("I have a $50 electricity bill").



> How about a *ticket* (that just came to me)? When I say "I have this 50$ ticket", does that mean I've bought a ticket worth $50 or I've received a fine of $50? Or could it be both?



That's actually a better example than the one with "bill": "$50 ticket" could refer to the amount that was charged for the ticket (a $50 bus ticket), or it could refer to the charge that the ticket contains (a $50 speeding ticket).


----------



## Messquito

吊(diao4)=hang
掉(diao4)=drop


----------



## eno2

SuperXW said:


> Wow, I never knew there were researches and terminologies for this! Thanks!






> Same spelling/pronunciation, opposite meanings (auto-antonym)


Auto-antonym?
You would be looking for  'contronym', also 'contranym'. That's not a question of spelling nor pronunciation, but of one and the same word having opposite meanings.
There are also many 'homonyms'. Those are different words with the same pronunciation. Quite a different thing. There is another CC thread about homonyms.

In my opinion, the thread title should be disambiguated. I propose 'contranyms'.


----------

