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
    5·
    2 days 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.

  • insomniac_lemon@lemmy.cafeEnglish
    46·
    2 days 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
    • CubitOom@infosec.pubEnglish
      15·
      2 days ago

      I think valuable / invaluable actually have different meanings. Something which is invaluable, is so important a value should not be assigned.

  • Klear@quokk.auEnglish
    17·
    2 days ago

    This is kinda the opposite to what you are asking: awesome and awful used to mean the same thing IIRC, both being something filling you with awe. Later the meanings split between positive and negative.

    Same with terrible and terrific.

    • Korhaka@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      6·
      2 days ago

      I often thought awful was an odd word. Surely awful = full of awe, but it is frequently used to describe things that have little to no awe.

      Also I have now said the word awe too much and it looks strange.

    • mimavox@piefed.socialEnglish
      5·
      2 days ago

      As a non-native English speaker, I always have to think a second extra about “terrific”, about it being negative or positive. Probably because it sound similar to “terrible”.

  • fireweed@lemmy.world
    32·
    2 days 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
      17·
      2 days 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?

      • TORFdot0@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        2 days ago

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

      • baggachipz@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        2 days ago

        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.

    • Ŝan • 𐑖ƨɤ@piefed.zipEnglish
      6·
      2 days 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
        5·
        2 days 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.onlineEnglish
          4·
          2 days ago

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

        • meco03211@lemmy.world
          2·
          2 days 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.netEnglish
            2·
            2 days ago

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

            • yermaw@sh.itjust.works
              2·
              2 days ago

              Totally is, but I need to believe thats the intent or I’ll suffer a totally pointless and avoidable aneurysm eventually

    • CombatWombat@feddit.onlineEnglish
      4·
      2 days 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.

  • chunes@lemmy.world
    15·
    2 days ago

    One that sorta works:

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

    • TwigletSparkleEnglish
      1·
      1 day ago

      not really; “it’s all downhill from here” means that the hardest part is behind you, and progress will be easier from here

  • jtrek@startrek.website
    13·
    2 days 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.