Linguistic ambiguities and nonsense phrases etc

[Clinamenic]

death to tools.

Make tools great again.

 

[WashYourHands]

Tool Time Team!

 

[WashYourHands]

I heard someone today saying the phrase "one of a kind" which always fascinates me in that its meaning in general usage is that someone or something is unique. What it literally says is the exact opposite, I mean if there is a kind and a person is one of that kind then they are not unique are they? They are similar to (if not the same as) the other members of that kind.

Another one is "a poor workman blames his tools" - which is used to say that someone who complains about their equipment must be a poor workman. This is in fact the converse of what the phrase literally says. If A = poor workman and B = blames his tools then the phrase can be rendered A => B when people intend to say B => A.

Another is "the exception that proves the rule" which is a weird one, people use it when someone has shown a counter-example which defeats their argument to somehow claim that it makes their argument stronger, which is obviously bollocks. I think that comes from a misunderstanding of the word "prove" which is here being used in the old sense meaning to test to destruction. In other words this phrase has, over time, become corrupted to mean the exact opposite of what it did originally.

As for ambiguities I like that one when someone is described as "deceptively tall" - does that mean that someone is short but deceptively looks tall, or that someone is tall but deceptively so in that they look short? Well I looked it up and it seems there is no agreement, it could be either of those things.

I think bi-monthly is similar... does it mean twice a month or every two months?

So why do these ambiguities and outright contradictions persist. How did they come about and why? And what else is there out there?

the old man would say “we have a holiday took” if we ever went on holiday, which sounded like a robbery (even to me)

the translations from Gaelic to English to half-forgotten Gaelic borrowing phrases from English on and on, yet every now and then there are examples that don’t quite sit with any branch (eg cat malogen) which, to my ears, tickle

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

that inflammable is a synonym, rather than antonym, of flammable (the actual antonym for both being nonflammable)

but incombustible is an antonym of combustible

despite the two sets of terms having what seems to be exactly the same type of Latin root

maybe with someone with better Latin can explain

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

inflammable being one of the most misused words in English, I'd guess

 

[Clinamenic]

that inflammable is a synonym, rather than antonym, of flammable (the actual antonym for both being nonflammable)

but incombustible is an antonym of combustible

despite the two sets of terms having what seems to be exactly the same type of Latin root

maybe with someone with better Latin can explain

Maybe "inflammable" is derived from the verb enflame, and the switch from en- to in- was aesthetic, rather than semantic?

 

[Clinamenic]

I'm getting red lines under enflammable so I gather its not established, which could support the above hypothesis.

 

[Clinamenic]

Another one that trips me up is indefatigable because of the negative meaning of fatigue, plus the additional two negatives of de- and in-

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Maybe "inflammable" is derived from the verb enflame, and the switch from en- to in- was aesthetic, rather than semantic?

anything with flame comes from the Latin "flammare" (which means flame) plus some prefix

so enflame - which is not a spelling you'd ever see? it's inflame - has the same root

it makes sense why inflammable and inflame mean what they do and not the opposite

"in-" those cases means "into"

but then you have words like incapable and indefatigable

where "in-" means "not"

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I guess what's really needed is an explanation of the rules of the Latin prefix "-in"

 

[IdleRich]

that inflammable is a synonym, rather than antonym, of flammable (the actual antonym for both being nonflammable)

but incombustible is an antonym of combustible

despite the two sets of terms having what seems to be exactly the same type of Latin root

maybe with someone with better Latin can explain

Yeah inflammable and flammable always seemed like an assault on everything I knew or believed about logic and language.

What inspired this thread was writing inarguable and then wondering if that meant you can't argue for that point or you can't argue against it. And then I wondered about unrguable and if that meant the other one or what.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

so, I understand the difference between flammable and inflammable (which, I should have been clearer, are not exact synonyms)

flammable == capable of being set on fire

inflammable == capable of bursting into flame without any ignition

however, combustible is an exact synonym of inflammable (with incombustible as the antonym of both)

the inconsistency - speaking of in - words - of derivation is what's confusing

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

as well as what rule, if any, any determines when in- means "into" and when it means "not"

 

[Mr. Tea]

The one that really twists my melon is the line on a UK passport requiring the foreign hypothetical reader of the holder's passport to "afford [them] passage without let or hindrance", in which let is, presumably, more or less a synonym for hindrance. Which is exactly the opposite of what you'd expect 'let', as a noun, to mean, give its usual meaning as a verb.

Another one that's pretty much as bad is "endorsement" as a good thing (a recommendation of some product or service) and the same word as a bad thing (points on your driving licence). How does that work?

 

[Benny Bunter]

.
Another one that's pretty much as bad is "endorsement" as a good thing (a recommendation of some product or service) and the same word as a bad thing (points on your driving licence). How does that work?

Just looked it up for you.

endorse (v.)

c. 1400, endosse "confirm or approve" (a charter, bill, etc.), originally by signing or writing on the back of the document, from Old French endosser (12c.), literally "to put on the back," from en- "put on" (see en- (1)) + dos "back," from Latin dossum, variant of dorsum "back" (see dorsal).

 

[mixed_biscuits]

When they're shit tools?

Why would a good worker use shit tools?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

The in- of inflammable is an intensifier

Like eg candescent -> incandescent

 

[Leo]

And then there's "nonplussed", which means one thing (perplexed, disconcerted) but is often misused for saying the opposite (unfazed, indifferent). Some dictionaries list the latter as a secondary "American, informal" definition.

Can't get more American than that: we misunderstand a definition, but are so full of ourselves and convinced that we just decide to use the word for what we want it to mean.

MAGA!

 

[Mr. Tea]

Why would a good worker use shit tools?

Because they've been caught in an emergency situation, without their usual toolkit, and have had to make do with whatever they had to hand.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Just looked it up for you.

endorse (v.)

c. 1400, endosse "confirm or approve" (a charter, bill, etc.), originally by signing or writing on the back of the document, from Old French endosser (12c.), literally "to put on the back," from en- "put on" (see en- (1)) + dos "back," from Latin dossum, variant of dorsum "back" (see dorsal).

Sure, that explains the origin of the word, but not how it came to have meanings that are pretty much diametrically opposite in terms of value judgement.

What other words are there like that? One I can think of is 'discrimination', which used to be a good thing (good taste, refinement, expertise), and now means unfair treatment, usually due to some kind of social bigotry.