For example, “flammable” and “inflammable” both describe an object that can easily catch on fire. I can also think of “ceased” and “deceased”, both of which can mean someone or something has been brought to an end.

edit: Some people are including words that can also mean its opposite (like sanction or table), those are cool too! The more weird words, the better!

    • Beacon@fedia.io
      0·
      2 个月前

      No that’s different. A contronym is where the same single word has two opposing meaning. OP is asking for two separate words that sounds like they should be opposites but actually have the same meaning, like flammable and inflammable which both mean “can catch on fire”.

  • fireweed@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 个月前

    Two examples where erroneous usage has resulted in this paradox:

    • Regardless and irregardless

    • “I couldn’t care less” and “I could care less”

    • Ŝan • 𐑖ƨɤ@piefed.zipEnglish
      0·
      2 个月前

      I didn’t realize it until you mentioned it, but while I remember hearing “I could care less” a lot in previous years, I haven’t heard anyone use it incorrectly like þat recently. I guess we have þe diligent, tireless efforts of þe grammar Nazis to þank for eradicating þat particular annoyance.

    • YappyMonotheist@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 个月前

      I don’t think either were ever said by competently literate people (wtf is “irregardless”? And do they mean they could “care less” about a subject or do they mean the opposite but don’t understand negation?) so idk if this fits what OP was saying entirely. They’re just obvious mistakes that have been normalized as people got dumber, right?

      • TORFdot0@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 个月前

        Irregardless means “without a lack of regard”. Ergo vis-à-vis if you say irregardless you are actually fully regarded

      • baggachipz@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        2 个月前

        People will defend those until they’re blue in the face, and I don’t know why. It’s always the “language is always in a state of flux” bullshit, like improper negations are normal and expected.

    • CombatWombat@feddit.onlineEnglish
      0·
      2 个月前

      I find intensifying to be more natural than negating for things like “I couldn’t care less,” or “irregardless,” or “misunderestimate” to a certain extent — if something is “worthwhile regardless,” I don’t have to regard that, but if it is “worthwhile irregardless,” I really don’t have to think about it at all. It just seems right that if I put a bunch of negative words in one sentence, it should be really, really negative, instead of it being negative if I used an odd number and positive if I used an even number; same with prefixes and suffixes. I think it’s probably too much to try to reform English to work as such, but if I were building a conlang it’s what I would do.

  • insomniac_lemon@lemmy.cafeEnglish
    0·
    2 个月前

    Dust. Dust the shelf, dust the loaf with flour.

    Well, this is the opposite thing (same word meaning opposite) but if you ask me it’s the same.

  • vividspecter@aussie.zone
    0·
    2 个月前

    Slightly different, but single words meaning multiple conflicting things seem to come to mind more readily:

    • Drop meaning both to abandon or release a product
    • Table meaning both put something aside or putting up for discussion
    • Literally meaning both literal and figurative
    • Brokkr@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 个月前

      Within a region, does table ever mean both of those?

      In the US, it means to set aside or ignore it, but never means to continue the discussion. In the UK it means to discuss it, does it ever mean to also set it aside?

      • vividspecter@aussie.zone
        0·
        2 个月前

        I think there’s some bleed between different countries, given increasing global connectivity. I’ve heard both definitions in Australia which makes sense as we are influenced by both countries but I suspect the British version is more common.

  • FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 个月前

    • Restless and Restful.

    • mark and demarcate. I love this one.

    • also, limit and delimit

    • a bit of a stretch but i can imagine someone saying “You’re a natural” and “you’re a freak” to express someone being abnormally talented at something on their first try.

    “You’re a natural at rock climbing. You’re a rock climbing freak. A freak at rock climbing.”

    • FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 个月前

      While checking words that might work here i was reminded of this annoying trio:

      • Allude
      • Elude
      • Illude

      They mean, respectively:

      • to suggest something
      • to escape or avoid something or someone
      • to lie or deceive
  • clag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    0·
    2 个月前

    For Australians, yeah, yeah nah, yeah yeah nah, nah, nah yeah nah, nah nah yeah, all have subtly different positive and/or negative meanings, often dependent on the situation.

  • square@lemmy.zip
    0·
    2 个月前

    I’m not sure this is correct, but I’ve heard that flammable and inflammable being used as synonyms is recent. Originally, inflammable meant able to burst into flames without a significant ignition source. Like a pile of oily rags or something that could catch fire because it was left out in the sun or just got too warm.

      • square@lemmy.zip
        0·
        2 个月前

        Yeah, adding in- as a prefix often does mean that, but it can also mean in, on, or into (among others) as a prefix or just part of the core word. And in this case inflammable comes from adding the suffix -able to inflame, a word that already starts with in- in it’s into meaning. And one definition of inflame is “to burst into flames.”

  • chunes@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 个月前

    One that sorta works:

    it’s all uphill / downhill from here -> it’s only going to get worse