Talk:Opposite

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

English Language

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

On 19 November 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Opposite (semantics) to Opposite. The result of the discussion was moved.

Untitled

does any one know the acronym of mysogynist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.147.1.1 (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the antonym of mysogynist? Dieter Simon 21:37, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's spelled 'misogynist' and the opposite of someone who hates women is either a 'misandrist' (one who hates men) or a 'philogynist' (one who loves women) depending on which aspect of the meaning you want to invert. --Distinguisher (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean antonym? if so, it's philogyny " fondness towards women" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.74.15 (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

opposite

There's a redirect to this page from opposite, but several concrete meanings of opposite are missing here. — MFH: Talk 14:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unless you can create it as an encyclopaedic article, it is probably more appropriately a Wictionary entry. Dieter Simon 01:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you fully -- but I'd rather say: on the contrary, things (links) like the opposite of a number (its negated value) are quite typical links found (at least in mathematics) on WP.

Ok, why not put them in yourself? If you have valuable encyclopaedic items you feel ought to be part of a Wikipedia article, please have a go. Sorry, I got carried away a bit with my previous reply to you, and left create out. Oh dear, such stress.(;-) Dieter Simon 22:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

what is the oppossite of silently —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.36.177 (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess 'audibly'. --Distinguisher (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the first few sentences of "General discussion" make sense: "Opposition is a semantic relation in which one word has a sense or meaning that negates or is, in the sense of scale, distant from a related word. Other words are capable of being opposed, but the language in question has an accidental gap in its lexicon. For example, the word devout lacks a lexical opposite..." Off the top of my head I came up with "lackadaisical". I could probably come up with more. The term "opposite" is a relative term and can change depending on what you hold neutral. That's how the word "misogynist" can have two totally different antonyms, as discussed aboveFairthomas (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hearsy Akashdeep9920 (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antonym should never have been moved to "Opposite (semantics)

The article "Antonym" should never have been moved to "Opposite (semantics)" without prior discussion or the merge prompt with an opportunity for Wikipedians to discuss the move. This is a very high-handed action and not in conformity with Wikipedia practice. "Antonym" is very much a definitive linguistic term unlike the imprecise "Opposite" which is not saved by the pretentious "(semantics)" tag. "Opposite" can be anything, "antonym" can be only one thing. See Help:Merging and moving pages.

How are you going to accommodate the article Synonym to this move? "Synonym" the antonym of "antonym" and not of "opposite". This is utterly ridiculous and wrong.

I therefore propose to move this back to its original name "Antonym". Dieter Simon (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this proposal. Firstly, the article is a very poor discussion of the types of relationships between words that are considered to be the "opposite" in meaning. I didnt think that their needed to be any discussion because there is a common usage among semanticist-linguists to refer to these types of word meaning relationships with the term opposition and opposite. If you consult the literature, you will see this. The most comprehensive treatment of lexical semantics is Cruse (1986) and that is his terminology. He gets his terminology from Lyons (1963, 1968, 1977). Lyons (1977) is one of the most well-known references on semantics. Lyons restricts antonym and antonymy to refer gradable opposites like big : small, high : low. Another lexical opposite is complementary, which is an ungradable opposite like male : female. Since these are probably the best references to consult on this topic, I adjusted wikipedia to follow their usage. It is not utterly ridiculous and wrong, nor is it imprecise since the imprecision of antonym is exactly why Lyons has restricted its definition. It is, in fact, common in linguistic literature. Why dont you have a look at the references to see if you think they are imprecise or if you find that "opposite" can be anything.

I only used the (semantics) tag because there is a disambig page at Opposite.

The use of the term opposite and its definition and relation to the term antonym has nothing to do with the synonym page. As pointed out by Lyons and others, opposites are quite different from synonyms and are not really "the opposite" of synonyms (despite the common belief to the contrary). – ishwar (speak) 02:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is the opposite of an "opposite (semantics)" then? What indeed is the opposite of a so-called "synonym"? Unlike an antonym which seems to be "defined as referring to only one kind of semantic relationship between a pair of opposites", what is a synonym which can have precisely the same meaning to one of its kind or can have a meaning nearly the same (but not quite)?

Surely doesn't antonymy encounter the same problem, in that it may be the exact opposite, or not quite the opposite (or nearly the opposite)? In their being graduated or scaled in meaning or quality on similar lines, would that not amount to the same oppositeness, in fact the oppositeness of "synonym" and "antonym"? Dieter Simon (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier in semantic research, antonyms and synonyms were conceived as being opposite types of meaning relations. However, this is not the way there are understood by Lyons and Cruse. I'll give you a quote from Lyons (1977) where he says some things about this (e.g. he classifies synonymy as a type of hyponymy — I dont know if he defines it this way in later work, I need to get a book of his published in 1981 to see...., Cruse does not define synonymy this way).

Cruse says that a synonym with exactly the same meaning is an absolute synonym and also that absolute synonymy is probably nonexistent or if it is existent is definitely unstable and likely to disappear as the language changes (i.e. absolute synonymy is not tolerated). Further away from absolute synonymy is a gradient scale that increasing becomes less "synonymous" due to various factors.

There are some word pairs which are "better" opposites than other pairs. I would have to read about this to tell you about this (Cruse has about 70 pages of discussion of opposites). But, opposites that are gradable and opposites that are not gradable do not make a pair of words a "worse" pair of opposites. Rather, these are just two different types of opposition, which have different properties. For example, complementaries (which are not gradable) have the properties of entailment: this is not shut entails this is open (and this is open entails this is not shut). Also, this is neither shut or open is a contradiction.

It's only a contradiction when applied to something which must exist in one or other of those two states, but not when applied to an object such as a pencil. It doesn't make any sense to talk of a pencil being open nor shut. Even for things like doors there are cases where I would be uncomfortable saying that one is in one or the other state as when a door has been removed from its hinges and placed on a rubbish heap. Is such a door open or shut? --Distinguisher (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antonynms (as defined by Lyon & Cruse as gradable opposites) lack this entailment: this is not cold does not entail that this is hot (but this is hot does entail this is not cold). And, this is neither hot nor cold is not a contradiction. Even though these relationships are different, most people find that the pairs dead:alive and hot:cold as some of the best examples of opposites (i.e. as the answer to what is the opposite of hot? or what is the opposite of dead?).

stay tuned for more info.... – ishwar (speak) 23:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

google books has Lyons (1977):

on origin of antonymy as "opposite" of synonymy (p. 286)
synonymy as type of hyponymy (p. 292)
defining antonymy vs. opposition (p. 279)
beginning of section 9.1 "Opposition and contrast" (p. 270)

Let me know if you cant access the links. – ishwar (speak) 13:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Palmer's book which is a nice intro to semantics: Lexical semantics, section 5.4 "Antonymy" (p. 94)

Right, Ish, even David Crystal agrees with you in his "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language", there doesn't seem any doubt about it, then. The point I am making , however, as I did at the very beginning of this discussion, is that the article should not have been moved without discussion first, merger notices, etc. As laid down in Help:Merging and moving pages, Wikipedians should adhere to these guidelines and procedures. After all, they were created by the Wikipedia community for very good reasons. Not doing so is the finest way to bring about a flame war. Perhaps, you might bear that in mind in future.Dieter Simon (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. However, since I was not "uncertain of the merger's appropriateness" and also did not "believe it might be controversial", I boldly deeded it unnecessary to propose a merger via discussion. I guess I was too bold. Sorry about that. – ishwar (speak) 00:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, well done nevertheless, over and out. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite of purple is orange. Surely there is a more appropriate example of a word without an opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.1.62 (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats an interesting response. I dont really get it. Do you mean like in the sense of a color wheel or something? – ishwar (speak) 03:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, although I am a huge idiot because the opposite of purple is yellow, not orange. That of course is why I do not edit pages myself. I realize colors pose a whole subset of additional issues but I am not certain that one can have yellow without purple, even as a sensation. I do not fully understand color perception (or blindness) but it seems that one cannot physiologically see a color without also perceiving its opposite. (Think of the old image games where you stare intently at a green shape and then look at a blank surface and see a red shadow image.) I realize that this is not really the point of the page, I was only thinking that there are plenty of examples of things without opposites that do not carry the same sticky bits. Like platypus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.1.62 (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, purple has an opposite on a colour negative in photography for instance. It's a very poor example. I'm going to change this.--Distinguisher (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can Male and Female be opposites?

I see that M-W refers to the expression "opposite sex" in its definition. However, you wouldn't say that a nut is the opposite of a bolt. Each serve their function in a symbiotic relationship and do not stand opposite in the true sense, i.e. cold and hot. It has always been my understanding that opposite is the other end of a linear scale for descriptors/states/emotions, not for nouns. Isn't the notion of sexes being opposites based on an archaic viewpoint (one where women weren't even considered people) that doesn't hold true in our current understanding of nature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.74.15 (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Male' and 'female' are complementary opposites as are pairs like 'student' versus 'teacher', 'predator' versus 'prey', 'parent' versus 'child' and so on. 'Hot' and 'cold' on the other hand are polar opposites. Complementary opposites involve terms that describe functional relationships between things while polar opposites involve terms that label opposite ends or directions along a scalar dimension.--Distinguisher (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges

In comparing similarities or differences, "Apples and Oranges" or "like apples to oranges" is an idiom to think about. What is the comparison criteria? Both are roundish, both are fruit, both can be juiced. To contrast- the skin of one is rougher, while the other smooth. Like chalk and cheese, what does that actually mean? At the opposite ends of some scale, but, both have calcium. Somewhere in the disscussion someone mentioned that ther are polar opposites and complementary opposites, which explained the concept more. Signed220.101.66.30 (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any two things in the universe have properties in common, if that’s what’s confusing you. 82.36.68.79 (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In poetry

See John Milton's, Paradise Regained for it's play on reversals, also Paradise Lost. Also Shakespeare's sonnets -" Shall I compare thee to a summer's day..." for exegesis , (sonnet 18) for opposites and double meanings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.66.30 (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Signed220.101.66.30 (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English Language

Words most nearly opposite: 1. Respect 2. Affection 3. Motivation 4. Preventive 5. Theoretical Åwürä Ãrhbêñâh (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What?? 82.36.68.79 (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite (semantics) → Opposite – CyberTheTiger redirected Opposite to this title, stating that it is the primary topic. If so, then per WP:MISPLACED the article should be moved to the undisambiguated title. (I'm making this an RM because I'm unsure whether it really is the primary topic.) jlwoodwa (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Certainly seems like the primary topic, both in usage and long term significance. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, clear primary topic of the term. BD2412 T 02:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The semantics article appears to purely be about opposite words, not the concept of opposing forces. There needs to be a WP:BROADCONCEPT article here, methinks. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. Theparties (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Linguistics has been notified of this discussion. Raladic (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Compelling argument by the oppose that the current article seems focus on linguistics exclusively, should it be expanded to become a broad-concept, or a separate article be made instead? Raladic (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Very clear primary topic in the absence of a broad concept article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support and expand the article to encompass other uses of "opposite" as well. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.