Talk:Contronym

message: Section Linguistic mechanisms is poorly sourced and needs citations. I am challenging the entire content of this section, including all of the examples, with the exception of the story about St. Paul's, and the "ar ball" example. Sources should be added to support the material in this section. Anything that remains unsourced, should be removed. Mathglot (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistic mechanisms section needs sources 

message: Is Impregnable really an example of this? The example given of the inverse is "impregnation" (to get someone/something pregnant, or to add material into another material). It seems to me that the words have a common root, but, are themselves different words. It is the only example that, when reading through the list, made me stop and go "eh?". I don't wish to remove it just because I don't get it - perhaps I am just been thick?
In any case it needs explanation as the citation is equally as confusing. --Inputdata (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query of the given example "Impregnable" 

message: Since no distinction was made in Proto Indo-European between borrowing and lending, this is a very common feature in many Indo European languages. This example is written too much as if it were a quirk of German and Polish, but the cognate contranym can be found in Spanish (prestar) and likely many other languages. I think this is such a general and interesting example it should be reworded. Its not just that German and Polish can have these words traced back to a Latin contranym, indeed a lange portion of human languages can trace their words for borrow or lend to a P.I.E. contranym. Coldham10 (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Prestar is not a contranym. -- Error (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borrow/Lend in IE languages 

message: "down" = "up" or "down". 
"I'm feeling down. You down for a party?"
"I'm feeling down. You up   for a party?"
and for that matter
"I'm feeling up!   You down for a party?"
"I'm feeling up!   You up   for a party?"
Not really up on this article so you all's call if it fits. Herostratus (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not an auto-antonym. Meters (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, "reissuing" is the reverse of "not allowing something to be expressed", so "repress" seems to fit the definition: "a word with multiple meanings (senses) of which one is the reverse of another." David Scrimshaw (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not opposites. "Pressing" an album is not the opposite of "repressing" feelings. Someone can press and re-press an album. We cannot "press" feelings. Sundayclose (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Pressing or reissuing an album is the opposite of not allowing the album to be expressed. But I take your opinion to suggest that it would not be well-taken for me to suggest adding this to the official lists. David Scrimshaw (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: But the terms "pressing" and "repressing" are not opposites in a general sense; only in the extremely narrow context of albums. Additionally, a reliable source that these words are auto-antonyms is required. Also look closely if you open an edit window in the examples section: "THIS IS NOT A LIST ARTICLE. Provide a reliable source or get consensus for new entries. See WP:EXAMPLEFARM." There is a sufficient number of examples, so we don't need any that are questionable. The article is not improved by adding press-repress, nor is it damaged by not adding those words. So no, don't add it. Sundayclose (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. David Scrimshaw (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

text: And thank you, Sundayclose, I appreciate your clear and thoughtful response. David Scrimshaw (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  oo got a new one 

message: Do कल, کل, ospite, huésped, hôte and ar ball (which looks similar to French "tout à l'heure") really have opposite meanings ? "Host" and "guest" are different flavors of the same role: people who meet together. "کل" actually means "one day away from now". Apokrif (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The "huésped" example in Spanish is wrong: "huésped" **always** means "guest", it never means "host" ("anfitrión"). A better example on a tangentially related word is the verb "alquilar" ("to rent"): it means both "to pay for rent [as a guest]" and "to provide a property for rent [as a host]". As a native Spanish speaker, this confusion drives me crazy! The andf (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sundayclose (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Sundayclose what do you mean? Do you speak Spanish natively? Which of my two assertions look dubious to you, that "huésped" always means "guest" in Spanish or that "alquilar" ("to rent") has the two meanings that are the subject of this article? The andf (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've missed the point. Whether you or I is fluent in Spanish is irrelevant for the purposes of Wikipedia. Personal knowledge is not considered a reliable source. See WP:V: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Any material ... must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." Read WP:RS for what is considered a reliable source, and read WP:OR for details about why your or my personal knowledge is not considered reliable. Hope this helps you understand. Sundayclose (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  As an old Wikipedia user and edit war veteran, I expected your reply. You can do your due diligence and see I'm right and that "alquilar" is a way better example. I don't care, I was just trying to be helpful. You can have your win if winning is what you care about (a mild suggestion: try being less rude in your comments. Your bold red "Not done" is unwarranted. Again: don't argue, just take the suggestion to become a better wiki editor). The andf (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not here to win. I am trying to do what is best for Wikipedia. And please take careful note that the first message I gave you is a standard template that is endorsed by Wikipedia for use when someone makes a request for a change in an article that is not accompanied by a reliable source, as you did. See WP:ERREQ. It's perfectly OK that you made the request, but your hostile and argumentative tone after being told a simple Wikipedia policy are not acceptable. If anyone is being rude, it is you. So please watch your tone. I'm fluent in two languages, but if I make a suggestion here I would provide a reliable source, and I would not be offended if someone requested reliable source. It doesn't matter how long you or I have edited or how many edit wars we've been through, we all have to follow the rules. You don't have to like Wikipedia policies to edit here, but you do have to follow them. You don't have to like standard templates that editors are allowed to use, but any editor is allowed to use them. I wish you the best and hope you understand. Sundayclose (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find your tone hostile, like someone gatekeeping instead of genuinely trying to improve the article. Before you reply denying this, just look at the reaction your comment elicited -- if you're a goal-oriented person, you'll adjust accordingly. Now, as for sources: See RAE for "alquilar", see how meanings 1 and 2 are in contradiction (and this is common usage). RAE does mention "huésped" can be seen as the host, so technically the example is correct and I was wrong, but... this is not how the word is used in practice. There is a very technical usage that is current: "huésped" for the "host" organism of a parasite/virus, but in this specific sense there is no confusion or duality, since the parasite itself is not called a "huésped". Spanish Wikipedia agrees with me; since the introduction of the word "anfitrión", that's the word we Spanish-speakers use for "host". Now, I know what you're going to say: "Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source". I know! But it does hint that this may not be the best example, does it not? So if you truly care about improving the article, maybe you'll accept this warrants looking into? The andf (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to look into anything. If you find a reliable source, it would be great if you gave it to us here. Now, I thank you for your comments; I'm finished discussing this with you. Have a good day. Sundayclose (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop using the royal "we", you are not Wikipedia. This is precisely what I meant about your gatekeeping hostile tone. I provided a link to the RAE, which is a reliable source, and to Spanish Wikipedia, which is not but hints the issue warrants looking into. Now, if you care about the article, you may do something about this other than arguing with me. The andf (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious examples 

message: In English, at least in American English, the term, "constructive knowledge", is often used to refer to a situation where there's a reasonable presumption of knowledge, but there is actually a lack of knowledge in spite of the reasonableness of the presumption. It mainly shows up in law. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're suggesting this as an addition to the article, please provide a reliable source that it's an auto-antonym. Sundayclose (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Does not appear to be an auto-antonym. "Constructive knowledge" is a phrase, not a word, and it does not have an opposite meaning. It means, in a legal sense, knowledge that one is presumed to have. The presumption may be incorrect, but that does not mean that "constructive knowledge" has any other meaning. Meters (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  In a legal sense, the term is only used in situations where it's possible that the person doesn't actually have knowledge. General semantic construction of the English language would suggest that the phrase refers to actual knowledge that one or more people have attained through their own research. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constructive Knowledge 

message: This expression can mean
1. Something is worsening 
2. Something is becoming increasingly easy, like how biking down a hill is easier than up it. 
They aren't exactly opposite meanings but close enough to merit being included on this page I think. 
Adam Friedland's Soiled White Pants (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a list article and can't have an unlimited number of examples. The article doesn't need new examples, and if an item is added it needs a reliable source, AND the source needs to unequivocally identify the word as an auto-antonym with an explanation. Additionally, your example is a phrase, not a word. Read the first sentence in the article that defines auto-antonym. Sundayclose (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and as with the previous thread, it's an expression, not a single word. Meters (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "All downhill from here" 

message: I added apology, bolt, bound and weather to the English examples section because they are auto-antonyms in common use that are not found in other articles, inside or outside of Wikepedia.  The reason given for their removal was I did not, "Provide a reliable source".  Each word was given a link to Dictionary.com.  Dictionary.com cites as its sources in the entries for these four words:
* Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2022
* Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition
* The American Heritage® Idioms Dictionary (Copyright © 2002)
* The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition (Copyright © 2005)
Had these words been found in other sources they would not have been added to the examples and I would hope we could all agree that those dictionaries are reliable.  I request the edit be reinstated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.159.125 (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology, bolt, bound and weather were removed 

message: :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, there is consensus that "contronym" (and "contranym") are the more common name(s) for this concept. (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Auto-antonym →  – Contronym seems to be by far the WP:COMMONNAME here, four times the Google results (and auto-antonym doesn't even come up on ngrams). The Oxford English Dictionary only has contronym. Auto-antonym seems to have originated from the initial ref and a cursory Google Books search shows no mentions before 1965, whereas contronym originated around the 50s-60s.  – Isochrone (T) 14:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

text: What about the issue of "contronym" vs. "contranym"? AnonMoos (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 September 2023 

message: These two meanings (of the many listed) appear (to me) to be contradictory:
"pitch, v. (1968-) transitive. North American colloquial. To discard, throw away. Also with out.", and
"pitch, v. (1943-) transitive. To try to sell (merchandise) by persuasion, esp. by drawing attention to specific attractions, advantages, etc. Now usually figurative…"
both taken from OED.  Fortunately, I read this Talk page first, particularly the discussion of List v. non-List, and am unsure of how to proceed.  What do you think? Sudleyplace (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not a contronym. They are not opposite meanings. Meters (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should We Append "pitch" As Another Contronym? 

message: From Wiktionary:
# A long period of time.
# An extremely short period of time; moment.
Are these not directly opposite meanings? A citation might be needed to add to the article. I will add it to the article if another user agrees. -1ctinus📝🗨 17:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so: I think it's a direct extension of "[it's been a] minute", which is just a tongue-in-cheek use of the existing sense of "minute", not a different sense.Also, as the comment says, this is not a list article, and I'm not sure what it adds to the article to add that example, especially without a citation. Remsense留 17:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "hot minute" a contronym?