wkalt in the ##english channel on the freenode irc network, brought up the issue of ‘belie’ meaning 2 opposite things
Is belie an autoantonym like ‘cleave’?
https://people.sc.fsu.edu/~jburkardt/fun/wordplay/autoanto.html has a fun list of autoantonyms.
‘We secured all our silverware from thieves’
We got it all from thieves?
Or we prevented thieves from getting it?
Burkart also has: “Few would argue that children are the chief beneficiaries.”
Most people agree that children are the chief beneficiaries?
Or only a few people think that children are the chief beneficiaries?
‘Your comments belie a total lack of understanding’
Your comments show a total lack of understanding?
Or, despite your comments, the fact is that you understand nothing about the matter?
I would secure the silverware against thieves, and then blackmail the thieves thereby securing hush money from them.
or secure against theft
drbean: I would take it as the latter, but I’m sure you could find examples of autoantonymical misuse
“few would argue” = “most agree” (but sometimes the referent is ambiguous)
Generally actions or observations belie statements, so using it backwards, where statements belie something else, is inviting abusive inversion of its meaning
it’s a matter of whether the argument is in favour of or against the proposition
“Your comments { belie / give lie to } [ your claim of ] a total lack of understanding.” → you’re feigning ignorance but making comments that suggest that you know more than you’re letting on.
If it were ‘a few would argue that children are the chief beneficiaries,’ ie, ‘a few’, rather than ‘few’, does that change the sense?
I think it removes ambiguity. Then it means, most people think children AREN’T the chief beneficiaries and some people are disputing that.
Considering “argue”: arguing with or against a proposition generally means disagreeing with it; arguing for or that a proposition generally means agreeing with it. If few argue (either way) then most take the opposing position.
(one of the odd cases where “with” and “against” give the same meaning)
I think that derives from arguing with a proponent, by arguing against their proposition.
‘argue’ and ‘agree’ mix up their use of prepositions.
If you argue with someone, you don’t agree with them.
Given the current fragility of prepositions in the English language as a whole, I would never be surprised to find otherwise competent native speakers uttering or writing confused autoantonyms
drbean: I’m pretty sure that’s what I said
oh right, the same preposition
‘fight’ is like ‘argue’, using both ‘with’ and ‘against’ with the same meaning.
Unlike ‘argue’, ‘fight with’ is an autoantonym?
But isnt ‘argue’ an autoantonym?
OK, ‘few would argue’ , not ‘argue’, is an antonym.
For ‘belie’, wiktionary’s sense 3: To contradict, to show (something) to be false. Synonym: give (the) lie to.
is consistent with kurahaupo’s ‘actions or observations belie statements’
Wiktionary’s 4th sense (said perhaps nonstandard): To conceal the contradictory or ironic presence of (something).
I guess this is the autoantonymical sense.
The 5th snese (also said perhaps nonstandard): to show (something) to be present, particularly something deemed contradictory or ironic.
This is an extension of sense 3, I think.
“I would argue that children are the chief beneficiaries” can only mean, I argue for the position that children are the chief beneficiaries.
How can it be that, “Few would argue that children are the chief beneficiaries,” can be taken to mean the few are arguing AGAINST the position that children are the chief beneficiaries?
I’m confused.