As usual some of these are a little suspicious. Apocryphal (as I learned it) is "of dubious origin"; it COULD be authentic but we just don't know. "Authorization" and "fiat"? In some cases you could use either ("By executive ____"), but come on! And I don't even know what to say about "shrewdness" and "gumption". "Gingerly" and "cautious" aren't even the same part of speech (if that's not a discredited concept). Croesus is a person, even if his name's a byword. "Miscegenation" and "apartheid"? I guess conceptually they're opposites. Etc. Habituate and inure?
"Inspissation" is one of my father's favored words, though I don't know what it means.
I've got nothing against conceptual twists. I like them. And obviously I can tell what they mean when they ask me if "vindicate" is the same as or the opposite of "exculpate", even though one can be exculpated without being vindicated and vindicated without being exculpated, and they are basically pretty dissimilar. It just bugs me that the answer choices are "same" and "opposite" when clearly they mean "more similar than dissimilar" and "less similar than dissimilar".
And if you think I'm a rigid thinker, then you've never seen my proof that the opposite of a hat is a pair of sandals, the opposite of spats is baldness, or my attempts to figure out what a hat for gloves is (we know there is such a thing, since spats are hats for your shoes, and gloves are shoes for your hands).
But really, I can't stay made at a web page containing "complaisant" or "dragoon".
Well of course I didn't read the instructions. Furrfu.
And that never occurred to me, or anyone with whom I discussed the opposite of a hat. Probably none of us has hairy feet. Change "proof" to "compelling argument" above until I've cogitated further. In the meantime, though, what's your argument?
I take it head/feet is a given. A hat is an inessential accoutrement added to one end, shaving one's toes is an inessential cosmetic removal at the other. Sleep on it.
96. same ... INCORRECT... the correct answer is opposite
104. same ... INCORRECT... the correct answer is opposite
121. same ... INCORRECT... the correct answer is opposite
156. same ... INCORRECT... the correct answer is opposite
169. same ... INCORRECT... the correct answer is opposite
You got 194 out of 200 correct.
You left 1 questions unanswered.
------------------------
Didn't intentionally leave any unanswered, but obviously I missed one. A few I guessed at. A fair number made me grumbly, because the alike/opposite factor was so freaking vague it seemed to me as if the author pulled words from dictionaries without being familiar with their actual usage.
On the plus side, a whole bunch of my favorite obscure words were used, and a smattering I either was delighted to be reminded of, or were simply new to me. A few too many medical-only terms for my taste, though.
Also, a bit over time-consuming, but still one of the more interesting quiz-type thingies (see what a great vocabulary I have?). Thanks.
Ben W, the all time great use of inspissiated comes from T.E. Lawrence (courtesy of this wonderful book that all should read immediately):
Professor Edgeworth, of All Souls', avoided conversational English, persistently using words and phrases that one expects to meet only in books. One evening, Lawrence returned from a visit to London, and Edgeworth met him at the gate. "Was it very caliginous in the Metropolis?"
"Some caliginous, but not altogether inspissated," Lawrence replied gravely.
An what's with extended being more unlike compendious than like in #169? Me an Gary Farber an probly Giblets an for all I know the Medium Lobster too got it wrong. How are we sposed to make a helluva clamor an din, revile Bush an otherwise exude contumely if we cant even free ourselves from such arcane an opaque comparisons?
Also, ogged, I don't buy shaven feet as the opposite of a hat. For one thing, you're really talking about shaven toes, which makes the case intuitively and numerically implausible; for another, I think the opposite of a hat has to be some kind of clothing.
Peculate: to turn into a sheep?
As usual some of these are a little suspicious. Apocryphal (as I learned it) is "of dubious origin"; it COULD be authentic but we just don't know. "Authorization" and "fiat"? In some cases you could use either ("By executive ____"), but come on! And I don't even know what to say about "shrewdness" and "gumption". "Gingerly" and "cautious" aren't even the same part of speech (if that's not a discredited concept). Croesus is a person, even if his name's a byword. "Miscegenation" and "apartheid"? I guess conceptually they're opposites. Etc. Habituate and inure?
"Inspissation" is one of my father's favored words, though I don't know what it means.
183.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-23-04 7:10 PM
You're a rigid thinker, Wolfson. I like the conceptual twists.
Though I would have appreciated it if the very next person to take the quiz hadn't beaten my score.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-23-04 7:34 PM
I've got nothing against conceptual twists. I like them. And obviously I can tell what they mean when they ask me if "vindicate" is the same as or the opposite of "exculpate", even though one can be exculpated without being vindicated and vindicated without being exculpated, and they are basically pretty dissimilar. It just bugs me that the answer choices are "same" and "opposite" when clearly they mean "more similar than dissimilar" and "less similar than dissimilar".
And if you think I'm a rigid thinker, then you've never seen my proof that the opposite of a hat is a pair of sandals, the opposite of spats is baldness, or my attempts to figure out what a hat for gloves is (we know there is such a thing, since spats are hats for your shoes, and gloves are shoes for your hands).
But really, I can't stay made at a web page containing "complaisant" or "dragoon".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-23-04 8:01 PM
From the instructions: "Decide whether these words are either (almost) the same or (almost) opposite in meaning."
Why isn't the opposite of a hat shaved feet?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-23-04 8:05 PM
Well of course I didn't read the instructions. Furrfu.
And that never occurred to me, or anyone with whom I discussed the opposite of a hat. Probably none of us has hairy feet. Change "proof" to "compelling argument" above until I've cogitated further. In the meantime, though, what's your argument?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-23-04 8:24 PM
I take it head/feet is a given. A hat is an inessential accoutrement added to one end, shaving one's toes is an inessential cosmetic removal at the other. Sleep on it.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-23-04 8:36 PM
Results of the quiz
96. same ... INCORRECT... the correct answer is opposite
104. same ... INCORRECT... the correct answer is opposite
121. same ... INCORRECT... the correct answer is opposite
156. same ... INCORRECT... the correct answer is opposite
169. same ... INCORRECT... the correct answer is opposite
You got 194 out of 200 correct.
You left 1 questions unanswered.
------------------------
Didn't intentionally leave any unanswered, but obviously I missed one. A few I guessed at. A fair number made me grumbly, because the alike/opposite factor was so freaking vague it seemed to me as if the author pulled words from dictionaries without being familiar with their actual usage.
On the plus side, a whole bunch of my favorite obscure words were used, and a smattering I either was delighted to be reminded of, or were simply new to me. A few too many medical-only terms for my taste, though.
Also, a bit over time-consuming, but still one of the more interesting quiz-type thingies (see what a great vocabulary I have?). Thanks.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 08-23-04 8:40 PM
Greetings, Unfogged.
Yes, I know it's silly. All in fun. :)
I ran unfogged.com through the vocabulary machine, and here's how you did.
Your score is 27 with matches for: whit, iota, gauche, halcyon, pithy, exculpate, draconian, churlish, imminent, nefarious, contumely, supine, intrepid, plebian, dour, schism, dearth, miscegenation, stentorian, effusive, craven, dastardly, clandestine, chimerical, contumely, turgid, tendentious.
Cheers,
Prometheus
Posted by Prometheus | Link to this comment | 08-23-04 8:45 PM
Who the hell used "stentorian?" We're supposed to be the unpretentious blog.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-23-04 8:51 PM
Uh-huh. It was baa, in a comment. He's thinking of voting for Bush.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-23-04 8:54 PM
180.
Let's just keep Brad Delong out of this.
Ben W, the all time great use of inspissiated comes from T.E. Lawrence (courtesy of this wonderful book that all should read immediately):
Professor Edgeworth, of All Souls', avoided conversational English, persistently using words and phrases that one expects to meet only in books. One evening, Lawrence returned from a visit to London, and Edgeworth met him at the gate. "Was it very caliginous in the Metropolis?"
"Some caliginous, but not altogether inspissated," Lawrence replied gravely.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 08-23-04 8:57 PM
I'd also like to note, in my defence, that a later comments in that thread contained "grout" as a verb, and "hobo." "Hobo" is an great word.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 08-23-04 9:04 PM
You get upset about "stentorian" but not "contumely"?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-23-04 9:25 PM
"Contumely" is almost always used ironically, usually with "heap," just like this.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-23-04 9:29 PM
That hardly makes it unpretentious.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-23-04 9:38 PM
Doesn't irony excuse everything? Are these the 90s or what?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-23-04 9:40 PM
I got 190. damn you, gary farber!!! (shakes fist impotently).
Posted by belle waring | Link to this comment | 08-24-04 1:02 AM
I got 187. Probably not good enough for bronze...
Posted by Theophylact | Link to this comment | 08-24-04 9:22 AM
176
Posted by Tom Beck | Link to this comment | 08-24-04 9:44 AM
An what's with extended being more unlike compendious than like in #169? Me an Gary Farber an probly Giblets an for all I know the Medium Lobster too got it wrong. How are we sposed to make a helluva clamor an din, revile Bush an otherwise exude contumely if we cant even free ourselves from such arcane an opaque comparisons?
Posted by Doug | Link to this comment | 08-24-04 10:17 AM
A compendium packs a lot into a small amount of space. Even I knew that, and you're all older and wiser than I am.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-24-04 10:33 AM
Also, ogged, I don't buy shaven feet as the opposite of a hat. For one thing, you're really talking about shaven toes, which makes the case intuitively and numerically implausible; for another, I think the opposite of a hat has to be some kind of clothing.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-24-04 12:19 PM