{"id":687,"date":"2024-07-06T11:10:16","date_gmt":"2024-07-06T11:10:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2024\/07\/06\/arguable\/"},"modified":"2024-07-06T11:10:16","modified_gmt":"2024-07-06T11:10:16","slug":"arguable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2024\/07\/06\/arguable\/","title":{"rendered":"‘Arguable’: a Near-Contronym"},"content":{"rendered":"

'Arguable' is a word that a careful writer, one who strives for clarity of expression, should probably avoid.  I have always used it to mean: it may be plausibly argued that<\/em>.  But then I noticed that some use it to mean: open to dispute, questionable.<\/em>  These two meanings, though not polar opposites, are inconsistent.  <\/span><\/p>\n

The two meanings of  the verb 'cleave,' however, are polar opposites: to stick together<\/em> (intransitive) and to split apart<\/em> (transitive).  Merriam-Webster<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Cleave<\/em> is part of an exclusive lexical club whose members are known as contronyms<\/a>: words that have two meanings that contradict one another. In the case of cleave<\/em> the two meanings belong to two etymologically distinct words. One cleave<\/em><\/a> means \u201cto adhere firmly and closely or loyally and unwaveringly,\u201d as in \u201ca family that cleaves to tradition\u201d; it comes from the Old English verb clifian<\/em>, meaning \u201cto adhere.\u201d The cleave<\/em><\/a> with meanings relating to splitting and dividing comes from a different Old English word, cl\u0113ofan<\/em>, meaning \u201cto split.\u201d So although one might assume the two were once cleaved to one another only to become cloven over time, such is not the case!<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

One is never done learning the mother tongue. Mine is English. I fancy myself a worthy son who honors his mother, a mother who is also a mistress whom I will never master. <\/span><\/p>\n

Just the other day, my assiduous editor, Tony Flood, pointed out that my use of 'enjoin' in a manuscript he is helping me prepare for publication, though a correct use, was ambiguous in the manner of 'cleave.'  Now I have a keen nose for ambiguity, both syntactic  and semantic, but this ambiguity had escaped me all these years. The verb 'enjoin' can mean<\/a>  either "to direct or impose by authoritative order or with urgent admonition" or "forbid, prohibit." I had been laboring under the misapprehension that it carried only the first meaning.<\/span><\/p>\n

All hail to the mistress we will never master, our alma mater<\/em>, the matrix of our musings, the sacred enabler of our thoughts.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is why, to keep with the maternal metaphor, the subversion of language is the mother of all subversion.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

'Arguable' is a word that a careful writer, one who strives for clarity of expression, should probably avoid.  I have always used it to mean: it may be plausibly argued that.  But then I noticed that some use it to mean: open to dispute, questionable.  These two meanings, though not polar opposites, are inconsistent.   The … Continue reading “‘Arguable’: a Near-Contronym”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,280],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-687","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-language-matters","category-vocabulary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/687","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=687"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/687\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=687"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=687"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=687"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}