English question

[oracle128]

Here's a simple question with an incredibly difficult answer: What's the opposite of "constructive"?

[serji]

destructive?

[sho-dan]

non-constructive

[oracle128]

Serji: Sort of.
sho-dan: There are two possible answers. Non-constructive is not one of them.

It's either "Unconstructive" or "Destructive". Destructive means something that is literally intended to bring about destruction; whilst Unconstructive (literally meaning 'not constructive') could imply either destructive or neutral (pacifistic) intent. So, while they are both antonyms of "Constructive", they're not the same word - and logically, a word can only have one opposite (it's a boolean concept - it is either constructive or it isn't). To throw another spanner into the works, there's also "Non-Destructive" (or "Nondestructive", depending on which dictionary you believe).

So, anyone have an explanation?

[Nick Grana]

Antonyms: destructive, hurting, injurious, negative, unhelpful

How about this:
When to put your child in school, you enroll them.
When you take your child out of school, do you unroll them? Deroll them?

[oracle128]

So if destructive is the opposite of constructive, where does that leave unconstructive and nondestructive? They're are not opposites of each other, infact they are closer to being synonyms than antonyms (unconstructive could mean either destructive or neutral; nondestructive could be either constructive or neutral).

Let's put it another way: Is the opposite of "win", "lose"? You would think so, right? But if "opposite" means "not", then "not win" does not necessarily mean "lose", because you can still "draw". A similar quandry with opposites happened on The Simpsons when Homer bets against Flanders in their sons' mini-golf tournament; Homer said "the father of the boy who loses has to mow lawns", but then Flanders said "lose" was too harsh, and they changed it to "the father of the boy who doesn't win", which was seemingly the opposite. But when the boys drew, both parents had to mow lawns (because neither of the boys won) - whereas if they'd kept with the word "loses", neither would have had to mow lawns (because neither boy would have "lost").

Quite a quandry indeed...

As for the opposite of "enrol", if anything, I'd have to go with "withdraw". But then that presents an issue; the opposite of "withdraw" could then be "enrol", "deposit", "present", "display", or any number of things. If A is the opposite of B, does B have to be the opposite of A?

[Snurfen]

destructive - causes disassembly
unconstructive - offering or adding no help - or actively obstructing
nondestructive - a passive activity

Not bad considering I'm Welsh!

[Archangel122184]

Actually orracle, its not a quandry... its lack of logic (or rather distorted logic) in spoken language.

As you noted... the oposite means not. So... what is the opposite of constructive? Logic says it is "not constructive"... this is true because you can't possibly describe every possible category by using descriptive words, nor can you actually separate everything in the world into 2 bins without having one bin being very detailed and the other incredibly vague.

Consider the common phrasology "This is a yes or no question, those are the only answers you can have." Well that isn't exactly true... a question like that can have to 2 answers only... but not yes/no... More like yes/not yet or no/not no. This is a common logical flaw in much of spoke/written language.

Another common error is the colloquial use of the word "or". Most people will use it to say something is "this or that", meaning it can either be "this" or it can be "that". The mathematical/logical construct for "or" say that something can be "this" or "that" or both... the way spoken/written language uses the term "or" is in the sense of and "exclusive or".

[z1p]

Originally Posted by oracle128

... and logically, a word can only have one opposite (it's a boolean concept - it is either constructive or it isn't). To throw another spanner into the works, there's also "Non-Destructive" (or "Nondestructive", depending on which dictionary you believe).

So, anyone have an explanation?

These is only true for words that only have one meaning or at least like meanings. I would say it is more accurate to say that 'logically, a meaning can only have one opposite'. But that is still supposing that you are dealing with a boolean system, which I say you aren't.

If I say that something is destructive does that mean that it is non-constructive. I'd say that it does, but not vice versa. The difference between the two words is how specific they are.

[jmtjet]

How about this:
When to put your child in school, you enroll them.
When you take your child out of school, do you unroll them? Deroll them?

Pick'um up?

[black mirror]

Originally Posted by Snurfen

destructive - causes disassembly
unconstructive - offering or adding no help - or actively obstructing
nondestructive - a passive activity

Not bad considering I'm Welsh!

#

Johnny 5 is alive

[Nick Grana]

If A is the opposite of B, does B have to be the opposite of A?

No, because words can be taken to new levels and meanings.
As in my example:
A=constructive
B=destructive, hurting, injurious, negative, or unhelpful
Most of those Antonyms can be changed to mean something different.
B=negative
A=positive or constructive

[Snurfen]

you lot ought to learn to talk proper england like wot I does.
*EDIT* copyright Eric Morecombe

[dammit]

Originally Posted by Snurfen

you lot ought to learn to talk proper england like wot I does.
*EDIT* copyright Eric Morecombe

The yanks is a bit fick mate.. never talk the Queens English like wot we does.

copyright dammit

[Snurfen]

cushtie, me ole cocker.