Something in today's strip [goats.com] awoke something of the pedant in me. How do "anti-mummy" spray and "mummy" spray manage to be the same? I agree that they are, but am confused as to how. "Boned" and "de-boned" chicken manage to do the same as do "spam" and "anti-spam" filters.

Language confuses me.

Dude.

Don't bone the chicken in public, okay?

A de-boned chicken couldn't do much at all, really.

As for a boned chicken, I reckon it'd squawk a lot, if nothing else.

I'm still getting my head round "flammable" and "inflammable..."

cleave: to adhere firmly and closely or loyally and unwaveringly; synonym: see STICK

Nice, hmm?

In Response to Umeeksk (#9737):

ooo...a TriGun fan I see...I've started watching that on Cartoon Network...I like

No comment on the chicken. In both other examples, it's because you can name something for what it is, and you can name something for what it does.

When you say "spam filter", you're using a name that describes what it does. (Well, that's the idea, but actually it's incorrect. We use air filters to filter the dust out of air; we don't use dirt filters, and we don't filter the air out of the system. So really it's an email filter.)

When you say "anti-spam filter", you're describing what it's for; it's a filter you use because you Don't Like Spam.

Similarly, just as hair spray is what you spray on hair, mummy spray is what you spray on mummies. It's function is to get rid of mummies, though, so it's purpose makes it anti-mummy spray.

This can be confusing if you're trying to figure out what to spray on an anti-mummy.

In Response to Umeeksk (#9737):

That's just a case of badly coincidental etymology.

Inflammable is not in+flammable. It derives from inflame.

In Response to mea37 (#9889):

??? Clever? Not so much. Just tellin' it like it is.

No, really. Here, look it up [reference.com].

That is quite a famous problem. So famous that it is infamous.

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be th same, while a wise man and wise guy are opposites? How can overlook and oversee be opposites, while quite a lot and quite a few are alike?

You have to marvel at a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out, and in which an alarm clock goes off by going on.

When the stars are out, they're visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible. When I wind up my watch, I start it , but when I wind up this post, I end it.

In Response to Clan_Hanna (#9952):

Wow, you should do a standup bit on that. Did you ever notice . . . Who are the advertising geniouses that came up with . . . You have to marvel at a . . . Perhaps you could spice it up by hitting watermelons with mallets.

Anyhoo, I was recently talking to a Sicilian friend of mine about mattresses, etc., and he talked about 'frazzle verbs'. As a native English speaker, I had not heard of such things. Apparently, though, when learning English from another language (this has been confirmed by a Spanish friend), you are handed page upon page of these 'frazzle verbs' that have to be memorized. What are they? They are essentially verbs that are given meaning by a trailing pronoun, such as 'get up' and 'get out', which really have nothing to do with the verb 'to get', and have words that better represent the actions (arise and acquire, for exampls). Once you know about these things, you soon realize the frazzle verbs are everywhere. However, they are far more common in English than in at least romance languages.

However, my favorite part of 'Frazzle Verbs' is the simple fact that they are given such a colloquial name that is no doubt lost on most students of the english languag.

In Response to Clan_Hanna (#9952):

Okay, I'll bite.

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be th same, while a wise man and wise guy are opposites? How can overlook and oversee be opposites, while quite a lot and quite a few are alike?

In this case, "fat chance" is a sarcastic statement. Same thing with "wise guy". The sarcasm makes them the opposite of what they appear to be. So a fat chance is in fact, not fat at all, and a "wise guy", is not wise.

You have to marvel at a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out, and in which an alarm clock goes off by going on.

I've never heard "My house burned up". I don't actually think that the usage for "burn up" and "burn down" are the same. The form thing is interesting; generally the "fill in" part refers to the action of entering the information into the spaces on the form, at which point it is "filled out" -- there's nothing more to be filled, so it's out of places to be filled. The "off" and "on" in the last example, while antonmys in other contexts, are not here, because of their contexts. The "off" here doesn't mean anything on its own and is part of the word phrase "go off" -- meaning to make a lot of noise or commotion. The phrase "going on" here refers to the idea of a machine becoming active, rather than it physically going onto something else.

When the stars are out, they're visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible. When I wind up my watch, I start it , but when I wind up this post, I end it.

The first sentence is the first one of all of these that really does point out bizarre double meanings in English. Here, "out" can mean both "here" and "not here" as in "The cat came out from behind the dresser" vs "The electricity is out again." Actually, when you wind up your watch, you are turning the knob towards its end (once you've wound it, you can't turn it anymore). After you wind it, it will start as a consequence of your winding, but that's not the action you're engaged in. When you wind up a post, you "turn" or bring it towards the end.

In Response to Deathalicious (#9954):

The "off" and "on" in the last example, while antonmys in other contexts, are not here, because of their contexts. The "off" here doesn't mean anything on its own and is part of the word phrase "go off" -- meaning to make a lot of noise or commotion.
  You're being handwavy, as my professor would call it. He wasnt pointing out that the etymology was bizarre so much as the fact that a foreigner looking up the definition of those phrases, word by word, would become perplexed.
   
  Yes, it is obvious to us that "go off" is not the same as the on/off antonyms, but that is simply because you have spoken the language for many many years and you're used to the slang. I don't know how many foreign students on campus who have taken enough years of English to be considered fluent, have asked me to define unusual etymology such as "going off" or "carrying on"...

In Response to deerboy (#9953):

'Frazzle Verbs'

Wasn't that a kids show on HBO?

Speaking of opposites.

In Response to zamphir (#9960):

'Frazzle Verbs'

It's what happens when Muppets get run over by the "Conjunction Junction" train.

Lolly's, Lolly's, Lolly's, get your Frazzle verbs here .....

In Response to Clan_Hanna (#9952):

you got the source material from an email, didn't you?

In Response to deerboy (#9953):

<!-- // Pedantic comment

They are essentially verbs that are given meaning by a trailing pronoun, such as 'get up' and 'get out'...

"Up" and "out" are not pronouns, but rather prepositions. You know, those things your English teacher told you never to leave dangling at the end of sentences.

-->

In Response to Ebs2002 (#9956):

I recall my professor trying (vainly) to explain the difference to a foreign-born student in one of my design classes the difference between "overhang" and "hangover."

Classic.

In Response to snipergirl (#9977):

Shhh.

In Response to Clan_Hanna (#10287):

This is the sort of pedantry up with which I will not put.

In Response to zamphir (#10291):

...up with which I will not put.

Conjugate much?

I shall
you will
he/she/it will

And you call yourself a pedant.

In Response to daubergoat (#10292):

And you call yourself a pedant.

No.

But I play one on the Internet.

In Response to Clan_Hanna (#10287):

Oh, did I say pronouns?

Sorry.

'Up' yours.

Is that better?

In Response to daubergoat (#10292):

Huh. what do you know [englishclub.com]

Well, you know. Grammar rules are pretty meaningless if they don't accurately describe real language usage. Nobody says "I shall" anymore, and when people say "I'll" they're not thinking "I shall" they're thinking "I will".

Evidence:

"I'll be right back."
"No you won't!"
"Yes I will."

vs.

"I'll be right back."
"No you won't!"
"I shall! I shall! Oh yes, I shall!"

Riiiight.

As far as I'm concerned, if it's good enough for Winston Churchill [wsu.edu], then it's good enough for me.

In Response to Clan_Hanna (#10287):

I had a debate with my sister over dinner one night about the usage "turn the can around". (We are such dorks. Shut up.) She is a journalism major and is rather proud of her grammer sk33lz. (I, by contrast, am a computer scientist. I somehow get by with my ability to speak English.)

We went through about 15 minutes of her trying to find a way to re-phrase "Turn the can around" such as to get "around" away from the end of the sentence. (Or, for that matter, to identify the object of the preposition. At one point she tried "turn around the can", but I argued that this would mean moving yourself, not moving the can.)

She'd given up, and then a few minutes later, out of the blue, she shouted "It's acting adverbially!" She is, it would seem, correct. In the sentence "Turn the can around," around is an adverb. It describes how one is to turn the can.

Arguably, "Get up" is of similar construction. Not so sure about "get out"; I think there you're actually implying an object for the preposition, like "get out of the house", with the full preposition being "out of"...