Quantcast
A Way with Words, public radio's lively language call-in show, hosted by Martha Barnette and Grant Barrett.
Listen | Newsletter | Ask a Question | Donate Now | Sponsorship |Discussion Forums
Discussion Forums | Start a New Discussion
 
You must be logged in to post Login Register
Search Forums:


 






Minimum search word length is 4 characters – Maximum search word length is 84 characters
Wildcard Usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

 

A Way with Words is supported in part by:

 

The University of San Diego   National University: Change your future today.

Phantonym

UserPost

10:51PM
Sep-27-09


Hansen

中國上海

Member

posts 19

郑翰森 Χανσον Hanson Zheng

4:23PM
Nov-05-09


lux rationis

Member

posts 63

Hanson said:As William Safire noted in March, when the president said that he wanted the American people to have “a fulsome accounting” for his stimulus program, he meant full, whereas to punctilious authorities the word means disgusting, excessive, insincere.


Here again, I'd like to point out that most words do not have a discrete meaning, but rather a range of possible meanings that is clarified by context. "Fulsome" originally meant "characterized by abundance." Connotation, more than denotation, is the problem in the cited example. While most modern usage has inclined toward the connotative value of "insincere" or "excessive," the original meaning with its more positive connotation seems to be reasserting itself, according to the Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary. Within this context, "fulsome" simply means "copious" or "full and well developed" and fits the context: the President wanted "a full accounting" for his stimulus program. Encoders need to be wary of ambiguity, but decoders, too, need to be flexible and consider the full range of possible meanings, not just the one that first strikes them.

5:02PM
Nov-09-09


martha

martha

Admin

posts 817

Hmmm…I think in this particular case, "fulsome" is unfortunate, though. I know I laughed when I read it, anyway. American Heritage has a note about this word as a usage problem. http://education.yahoo.com/ref…..ry/fulsome

4:41PM
Feb-12-10


johng423

Member

posts 127

Some people reason that if "flammable" means combustible, then "inflammable" must mean the opposite and might erroneously assume certain materials are fire-safe when they actually are not (the dictionaries I've consulted say it also means combustible). Is this another example of a phantonym?

And how about the ruckus a while back when a public figure used the word "niggardly" and it was misunderstood?

11:51AM
Feb-22-10


Grant Barrett

San Diego, California

Admin

posts 1212

Inflammable is indeed a pretty good example of a "phantonym."

11:59AM
Feb-22-10


Kaa

Atlanta, Georgia

Member

posts 43

What about "spendthrift" as a phantonym? It LOOKS like it ought to mean someone who SAVES money, not someone who SPENDS wantonly. And, thanks to Grant and Martha, I realized today while driving to work that I've been using the word incorrectly for years. :)

12:07PM
Feb-22-10


Grant Barrett

San Diego, California

Admin

posts 1212

Exactly, Kaa! As the caller noted, it definitely does not look like what it means.

9:22PM
Feb-23-10


tromboniator

Member

posts 215

There is no confusion about the verb inflame, is there? It seems clearly to indicate ignition in a figurative sense if not a literal one: The finger became inflamed where the thorn had pierced it; The professor's passionate lectures inflame students' curiosity about the subject. Inflammation seems clear as well.

Peter

9:07AM
Feb-24-10


Glenn

Admin

posts 1148

Post edited 9:08AM – Feb-24-10 by Glenn


tromboniator said:

There is no confusion about the verb inflame, is there? It seems clearly to indicate ignition in a figurative sense if not a literal one: The finger became inflamed where the thorn had pierced it; The professor's passionate lectures inflame students' curiosity about the subject. Inflammation seems clear as well.


There are other prefixed verbs that are near synonyms with their unprefixed couterparts. In several cases, the prefixed version has the potential, but not always the reality, of ambiguity. (e.g. resolve≈solve and not "to solve again")