-1

Although as stated in this question (concerning the seemingly contradictory senses of the definition of peruse)

it's like saying "peruse is A" and "peruse is not A"

The senses provided by Merriam-Webster may appear to be semantically contradictory, however they do not preclude each other's use, due to the nature of the senses being positive claims.

So in light of this, do there exist definitions that rather than affirming a word's meaning within a context, restrict the meaning of a word such that it is deemed illegitimate within a given context?

Or otherwise phrased, as Mitch suggests in his comment, do dictionaries provide definitions that involve "using a more general definition and excluding portions of the general set"?

Scott - Слава Україні
  • 7,276
TomDot Com
  • 449
  • 3
  • 11
  • 1
    Could a dictionary do it? Certainly. Do any actually do so? I don't know, but I wouldn't think so if you mean that the definition says only how a word cannot be used, as compared to a "it means X but note it can't mean Y" type thing. – nnnnnn Nov 03 '20 at 03:56
  • 1
    It would be impossible for a dictionary to list everything that a word does not mean. – Weather Vane Nov 03 '20 at 08:19
  • @WeatherVane And a dictionary need not do that. Couldn't a dictionary include, within a definition, a note on common finite misapplications of a word and thereby make a negative claim of its use? For example, suppose there was a word that had the definition Y but was being increasingly employed to mean X. In a transitory stage between legitimising the new definition, couldn't a dictionary be amended to claim that the word has been misapplied to mean X, and thereby has been made to make a negative claim? – TomDot Com Nov 03 '20 at 10:52
  • 1
    Perhaps then you need a dictionary of English usage. – Weather Vane Nov 03 '20 at 10:54
  • Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary once contained the unhelpful 'mirbane: apparently, this is a meaningless word'. // But you're not going to find a dictionary listing vast numbers of 'unacceptable example sentences' (though some do give very helpful caveats and usage notes). //// 'Do words meaning '"not ..." exist?' is trivial. Uninflammable. Ignoble. Irreverent. Non-aqueous. Inhuman. Amoral. This is junior school stuff: we had to learn short (non-exhaustive) lists. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 03 '20 at 12:59
  • 1
    I think what you're getting at is not any sort of negative in a definition but rather an exclusionary part of the definition. That is, using a more general definition and excluding portions of the general set. eg, "mitigate means to make things better than they were but not necessarily good". Is that what you're wondering if it is actually used in a dictionary? – Mitch Nov 03 '20 at 14:03
  • 1
    @Mitch Yes, that's probably a better phrasing of what I wanted to ask. – TomDot Com Nov 03 '20 at 14:09
  • 1
    Lurking behind this question is another one: why don't dictionaries do that (more often), when it would be so useful if they did? That may technically be outside the scope of this site, but it is a very interesting question. – jsw29 Nov 03 '20 at 15:57
  • M-W's definition of toad goes into some detail what is a toad and what is a frog (which isn't a toad). It's certainly useful in some cases to describe X by saying "not Y". – Stuart F Aug 02 '21 at 22:30

2 Answers2

1

Could a dictionary provide a definition, for example, in the form of: "Not of, or resembling X"?

Sure and it’s trivial to find such definitions in web-based dictionaries with a good search like site:merriam-webster.com "not of" or site:lexico.com "not of".

For example:

  • Nonmicrobial: not of, relating to, caused by, or being microbes (MW)

  • Marginal: not of central importance (MW)

  • Unnoble: Not of noble birth or rank; rare Of or relating to a person who is not of noble birth or rank. (Lexico)

(Many of the words you see in searches like that are words with negative prefixes, like un- and non-, not by coincidence.)

These definitions have no contradictions, but some do. Some words are autoantonyms, with one sense of the word being the opposite of the other. One of the most well known of these words is literally, which MW defines in one sense as “used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible”.

Laurel
  • 66,382
  • 2
    I don't think the OP is looking for a contradiction but instead a 'subtractive' definition (see comment on question). Can you think of any that start off general and then whittle away using 'but not'. – Mitch Nov 03 '20 at 14:54
  • Having spent a long time with the OED, I can't remember seeing anything that resembled the "but not" idea, although there are a few entries that include "as opposed to". – Greybeard Nov 03 '20 at 22:55
1

bitter Having a sharp, pungent taste or smell; not sweet. Lexico

sweet Having the pleasant taste characteristic of sugar or honey; not salty, sour, or bitter. Lexico

Using this definition of bitter, could I say that something that is salty is also bitter just because it isn't sweet?

M-W takes a different approach with bitter, without saying what it's not, but adds:

— compare SALTY entry 1 sense 1b, SOUR entry 1 sense 1, SWEET entry 1, UMAMI entry 2 sense 1

mediocre not very good Cambridge

vs.

mediocre of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance : ORDINARY, SO-SO m-w

The "not" approach here leads to a problem because "not very good" can be understood two ways: (1) How was the food? It wasn't very good. = I wouldn't call it good at all; and (2) How is the food at that new place? I'd say it's good, but not very good. Will a student of English know which was meant? You could also make the case that food that isn't very good at a restaurant (I sent it back) is worse than mediocre (I ate it anyway).

DjinTonic
  • 21,299
  • Your observations seem more to be in the lack of care put into dictionaries. In the rare (or trivial) cases where something can be defined only by the lack of a unique attribute, e.g. "not X", a negative may be of use -> unlucky = not lucky. -- PS I think that Lexico should be "not salt" rather than not salty** where "salt" is one of the perceptible taste sensations. – Greybeard Aug 15 '21 at 22:25