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!

  • clag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    13 hours ago

    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.

  • Owl@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    In French there is personne (someone) and personne (no one), plus (more) and plus (no more)

  • insomniac_lemon@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    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.

    EDIT: For some that fit better:

    • thaw / unthaw
    • terminate / exterminate
    • valuable / invaluable
    • caregiver / caretaker
  • fireweed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 day ago

    Two examples where erroneous usage has resulted in this paradox:

    • Regardless and irregardless

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

    • YappyMonotheist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      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?

    • CombatWombat@feddit.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

    • Ŝan • 𐑖ƨɤ@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        I þink i’ve seen your comments around a few times and it always seems like haters are downvoting just for þe use of “þ.” Most unwarranted, if so!

        • tuckerm@feddit.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          I agree! I do appreciate the apparently zero fucks that this person gives about the downvotes, though. :D

        • meco03211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          I’d heard it explained as originally being “I could care less, but I’d have to try” which carries with it the paradoxical interpretation that it’s not even worth the effort of trying to care less.

          • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            That sounds like a post-hoc rationalisation. I don’t believe anyone said that “full version” before saying the wrong version

  • jtrek@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    Sanction can mean a punishment or an authorization.

    Came up in a DND game where a devil’s contract said the players crossing the region would be sanctioned, or something like that. Players thought it meant they had permission, fine print said they would be punished.

  • chunes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    One that sorta works:

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