Lionel Deimel's Web Log

 

Random quick takes by Lionel Deimel
Lionel Deimel  

Subscribe to posts Subscribe to Posts:
[Atom] [RSS] [E-mail notice for church posts]

 

Most Recent Posts
Table of Contents

Previous Posts

Playing by the Rules?
The Pittsburgh Laity Speaks
What to Call Her
What Didn’t Happen
Welcome to my church...
“Schism”
Quick Monday Morning Thoughts
Now what?
A Pittsburgh Lament
The Faith Once Delivered


Archives

Web Log Home

February 2002
March 2002
April 2002
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
December 2003
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
November 2004
January 2005
May 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008

Web Log Home


Lionel Deimel's Farrago

Home
Commentary
Language Notes
Site Map
Search


This page is powered by Blogger. Why isn't yours?

Copyright © 2002-2008
Lionel E. Deimel, Ph.D.
All rights reserved.


March 12, 2008

Random Linguistic Oddities

Certain English words have multiple meanings, some of which can be virtual opposites of one another. “Sanction” is one of these, which can mean authorize or approve of, but can also mean to punish so as to deter. Consider:
Although the administration sanctioned waterboarding, Congress sanctioned the CIA operatives who utilized the technique in interrogations.
Can we construct a sentence using “sanction” that is ambiguous and whose possible meanings are approximately opposite? Actually, this is difficult, as actions are usually sanctioned (authorized), but persons are usually sanctioned (disciplined) for their bad behavior. I remembered that sporting contests are said to be “sanctioned” by sports governing bodies, however, which lead me to this sentence:
Because the all-women league was sanctioned by the ABC, rather than the WIBC, it was sanctioned by the ABC for failing to file the required paperwork.
(The ABC is the American Bowling Congress, and the WIBC is the Women’s International Bowling Congress. These two organizations have now merged.) The usage in the dependent clause of this sentence differs subtly from the corresponding usage in the first sentence. This observation leads to the ambiguous sentence:
The ABC sanctioned the league.
The usual meaning would be that the ABC sponsored or authorized the league, but the meaning of imposing a penalty on the league cannot be ruled out.

A similarly strange word is the verb “to dust,” which can mean to remove dust or to apply it. Consider these two sentences:
Malcolm dusted the cabinet.

Malcolm dusted the cabinet for fingerprints.
Two quite different actions are being described here! (By the way, “Malcolm” is odd in its own right. It contains both a sounded and a silent L. See my essay “Silent Ls” on Lionel Deimel’s Farrago.)

“To trim,” another odd verb, can mean to remove part of something or to add decoration to it. What do you suppose this sentence means?
The logger trimmed his family’s Christmas tree.
The reader cannot tell without more context!

Finally, homonyms can sometimes be used to create sentences that sound alike but have different meanings. Somewhere, recently, I encountered:
You have been to much trouble.
This sentence acknowledges the efforts of another. This sentence, however, has a very different message:
You have been too much trouble.
Of course, although the words in both sentences are pronounced alike, we would speak the sentences with emphasis on different words!


Posted by Lionel Deimel at 9:47 AM
Permalink