How about a wedding ring as the opposite of a hat. If you assume that an essential quality of the hat is that it is an accoutrement that is worn to respond to either climate or fashion. In addition a wedding ring is worn on an extremity and is solid and made of metal rather than cloth.
It is, admittedly singular, but I think that's one of the least important traits for opposition. Given Wolfson's acknowledgement that opposites have to have some commonality I would think that commonality of number would be frequent.
What, by the way, would be the opposite of a scarf?
the opposite of a thing, if we have ceased being silly, is always just that very thing, with a moustache. This is why, whenever one wants to introduce the evil version of a truly unmitigated good, one produces that very good, with a moustache. True opposites are exactly the same, except that they exert themselves in opposite directions. Aside from the directional shift, all else is identical. The directional shift is supplied by the moustache. This is called "bizarro."
Therefore, the opposite of a scarf is that very scarf with a moustache.
"I told my neighbor that the next time she has a jay at her feeder she should look closely at its facial markings. They consist of three parts: an elaborate "moustache" over the beak; an irregular black line that frames the face, rather like a black scarf worn loosely about the shoulders; and a line that connects the scarf with the moustache through the eye."
I believe it was Niels Bohr who said – I'm paraphrasing, mind – that there are two kinds of hats, simple and profound; and that while the opposite of a simple hat is a speculum, the opposite of a profound hat is another profound hat.
For further evidence supporting text's analysis, consider: when we wish to mock or corrupt someone's countenance on a poster – indisputably an act of negation – do we not draw a moustache on it?
I know Ogged has declared the issue settled, and in no way do I mean to undermine his authority in such matters, but a vexing question remains. As has been documented, I have a full beard and a moustache. If I shaved my moustache, would I then be the antipostropher, or would that require growing a second moustache somewhere else?
Fuckin' right, apostropher. Much of this discussion by rights ought to be taking place on my blog, where the original post has accrued fewer than 42 comments.
33 is most perplexing. It would seem that, in your current state, you are already the opposite of something else. Were you to shave the moustache, you would return to that other thing.
But nay. You have a full beard and moustache. That's totally different. To be the opposite of yourself, you would have to have just a moustache, or in the alternative, a beard and a moustache somewhere else, as you have suggested.
But that leaves open the possibility of two imaginable anti-apostrophers (or notpostrophers), one of which sports only a moustache, and one a full beard and a second moustache, located on some other bodily region. Whereas a thing can have only one opposite.
And then, of course, the idea of a second moustache is just silly. Therefore, your opposite consists of yourself, without the beard, and a moustache.
OK, I laughed at that. But don't you think the word "faggot" is less funny than "fag"? (Obviously, neither of us mean any malice by reference to the words.)
29: I didn't mean to be inconstant, ac. While I was leaning textward when I wrote 14, I thought (and still do think) your speculum theory a fine one. And, as others have noted, I was taking care not to misrepresent Bohr's famous dictum.
35: Ben, if opposition isn't negation, what is it? Duality? Well now, what is dual to a hat?
35: Ben, if opposition isn't negation, what is it? Duality? Well now, what is dual to a hat?
It's plain that opposition isn't negation. For, if we may represent semantics as a number line, and state that a word's meaning is X, surely its opposite means -X. The opposite of good is bad, while the negation of good is simply "not good"--neutrality is included. The negation of "very good" is "not very good", and could well include "merely good", while its opposite is "very bad".
Maybe it's pedantic, but following SB's paradgim, 1.2 would be "The world divides into hats". I concede that I had to walk to my bookshelf to check that.
Hats off, sandals on.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 11:57 AM
Hard to do with my head turned inside out. Forget it, they'll smear my Nair daubs anyway.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 12:57 PM
Better sandals than specula.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 12:59 PM
I was wondering where Ben was going to put one of those.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 1:05 PM
How about a wedding ring as the opposite of a hat. If you assume that an essential quality of the hat is that it is an accoutrement that is worn to respond to either climate or fashion. In addition a wedding ring is worn on an extremity and is solid and made of metal rather than cloth.
It is, admittedly singular, but I think that's one of the least important traits for opposition. Given Wolfson's acknowledgement that opposites have to have some commonality I would think that commonality of number would be frequent.
What, by the way, would be the opposite of a scarf?
Posted by NickS | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 1:07 PM
I think that's been revealed.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 1:07 PM
the opposite of a scarf
An anti-Scarf.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 1:10 PM
I think that's been revealed.
You stay away from Ben's corrigendum, now.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 1:22 PM
the opposite of a thing, if we have ceased being silly, is always just that very thing, with a moustache. This is why, whenever one wants to introduce the evil version of a truly unmitigated good, one produces that very good, with a moustache. True opposites are exactly the same, except that they exert themselves in opposite directions. Aside from the directional shift, all else is identical. The directional shift is supplied by the moustache. This is called "bizarro."
Therefore, the opposite of a scarf is that very scarf with a moustache.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 1:46 PM
if we have ceased being silly
Apparently not.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 1:47 PM
I find text's argument rather compelling, actually, apo.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 1:50 PM
"I told my neighbor that the next time she has a jay at her feeder she should look closely at its facial markings. They consist of three parts: an elaborate "moustache" over the beak; an irregular black line that frames the face, rather like a black scarf worn loosely about the shoulders; and a line that connects the scarf with the moustache through the eye."
The opposite of a scarf is a blue jay.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 1:51 PM
That sexcerpt wasn't very titillating.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 1:52 PM
I believe it was Niels Bohr who said – I'm paraphrasing, mind – that there are two kinds of hats, simple and profound; and that while the opposite of a simple hat is a speculum, the opposite of a profound hat is another profound hat.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 1:53 PM
Not if you read it literally, no.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 1:54 PM
The opposite of hat is probably in this boy's wardrobe.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 1:57 PM
The opposite of Unfogged.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 1:57 PM
Did the boy who reversed himself grow up to be John Kerry?
Geddit? Geddit?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 1:59 PM
He grew up to be John Kerry before he didn't grow up to be John Kerry.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:00 PM
Oddly enough, that's the part that I remember most clearly.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:00 PM
The opposite of Unfogged.
Who quits their "J-O-B"? It's not like the boss can't spell.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:04 PM
For further evidence supporting text's analysis, consider: when we wish to mock or corrupt someone's countenance on a poster – indisputably an act of negation – do we not draw a moustache on it?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:29 PM
*nods sagely*
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:36 PM
Okay then, let us stipulate for the sake of argument that the opposite of X is [X + moustache]. Is this item, then, the opposite of a hat?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:42 PM
I'm glad this is settled, and decisively. Thanks, text.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:42 PM
Way to cross-post with a goddam question there, apo. The answer, of course, is yes, it certainly is.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:44 PM
Your confidence is charming. Color me agnostic on the question.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:46 PM
I have contributed to humankind's store-house of knowledge! Now I can go back to office tedium, occasionally rendering an inartful cock joke.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:46 PM
SB agreed with me in 14, and then took it back in 22.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:50 PM
Fickle of him.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:51 PM
He merely paraphrased Niels Bohr in 14.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:52 PM
But it had the perlocutionary effect of making ac think he agreed with her.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:54 PM
I know Ogged has declared the issue settled, and in no way do I mean to undermine his authority in such matters, but a vexing question remains. As has been documented, I have a full beard and a moustache. If I shaved my moustache, would I then be the antipostropher, or would that require growing a second moustache somewhere else?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:55 PM
Indeed it did, but that's ac's problem.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:55 PM
After further consideration I think that mustaches are negation, and not opposition, operators.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:55 PM
But Niels Bohr agrees with me. So that's something.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:56 PM
now it is I who enjoy S.B.'s favor! Standpipe wears my colours, in all his versing glory!
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:56 PM
in no way do I mean to undermine his authority in such matters
I'm having a hard time believing this.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:56 PM
Ben, negate? Are you saying Bizarro World doesn't exist?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:57 PM
I'm having a hard time believing this post has generated 40 comments.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:58 PM
Ogged, Bizarro world doesn't exist—bizarrely, by existing.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:59 PM
Fuckin' right, apostropher. Much of this discussion by rights ought to be taking place on my blog, where the original post has accrued fewer than 42 comments.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 2:59 PM
Welcome the real world, Ben, where charm matters much more than ability.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:00 PM
33 is most perplexing. It would seem that, in your current state, you are already the opposite of something else. Were you to shave the moustache, you would return to that other thing.
But nay. You have a full beard and moustache. That's totally different. To be the opposite of yourself, you would have to have just a moustache, or in the alternative, a beard and a moustache somewhere else, as you have suggested.
But that leaves open the possibility of two imaginable anti-apostrophers (or notpostrophers), one of which sports only a moustache, and one a full beard and a second moustache, located on some other bodily region. Whereas a thing can have only one opposite.
And then, of course, the idea of a second moustache is just silly. Therefore, your opposite consists of yourself, without the beard, and a moustache.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:01 PM
I'm just going to start copying your posts and comments in toto.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:01 PM
Tim, I don't think I appreciate that. But are you calling me charming?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:02 PM
Jesus, text has given this shit some thought.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:03 PM
Why must you be such a "glass half-empty" guy, ogged?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:03 PM
Coining "notpostropher" is an act of minor genius, text.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:05 PM
You are calling me charming! That makes you, like, a faggot.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:05 PM
And then, of course, the idea of a second moustache is just silly.
A second moustache above your second "nose". Go for it.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:05 PM
Isn't the anti-apostropher simply "postropher"?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:06 PM
OK, I laughed at that. But don't you think the word "faggot" is less funny than "fag"? (Obviously, neither of us mean any malice by reference to the words.)
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:06 PM
29: I didn't mean to be inconstant, ac. While I was leaning textward when I wrote 14, I thought (and still do think) your speculum theory a fine one. And, as others have noted, I was taking care not to misrepresent Bohr's famous dictum.
35: Ben, if opposition isn't negation, what is it? Duality? Well now, what is dual to a hat?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:08 PM
the second moustache for the second nose would have to have some effect. But hopefully not negation.
I should probably quite while I'm ahead.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:08 PM
Three hats and a beard! Starring Tom Selleck.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:09 PM
a horrible typo! all is lost.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:09 PM
who plays the beard? Nicole Kidman?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:09 PM
Not Tom Selleck, dammit. But I can't think of a famous beard right now.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:10 PM
Starring a moustachioed Tom Cruise, with Katie Holmes as the beard.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:10 PM
35: Ben, if opposition isn't negation, what is it? Duality? Well now, what is dual to a hat?
It's plain that opposition isn't negation. For, if we may represent semantics as a number line, and state that a word's meaning is X, surely its opposite means -X. The opposite of good is bad, while the negation of good is simply "not good"--neutrality is included. The negation of "very good" is "not very good", and could well include "merely good", while its opposite is "very bad".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:10 PM
Kidman is good!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:10 PM
Not Tom Selleck, dammit. But I can't think of a famous beard right now.
JZ Smith's beard is pretty fucking awesome.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:11 PM
Frymybacon.com claims that SuperGreg has two moustaches.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:12 PM
Awesome awesome. Starring Tom Selleck, Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman and...Vin Diesel.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:12 PM
Wow. I think I actual understood that, Ben. Neat.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:12 PM
Well, if you grant him the number line bit, he's golden.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:14 PM
61: You are of course correct, Ben. I wonder why they let me out of the padded room sometimes.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:14 PM
67: I sometimes employ images which, though strictly false, nevertheless help the ignorant to grasp the truth.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:16 PM
But to address the substantive point, the negation of a hat is simply "not a hat". So the moustache-as-oppositor isn't discredited yet.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:17 PM
Apparently Ben finds you charming, Timbot.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:17 PM
Wolfson is a bodhisattva! The Benisattva!
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:18 PM
Ben is Early Wittgenstein.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:19 PM
The Benisattva!
Known to his friends as The Benis.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:20 PM
Oh, sweet Jeebus. That's terrifying - I once (OK, more than once) tried to read bits of Wittgenstein. I ended up balled up in a corner, mewling.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:20 PM
Every day a little sadder
A little madder
Someone get me a ladder
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:20 PM
1.1 The world is the totality of hats, not of heads.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 3:24 PM
1.2 There are some hats which do not exist.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 5:47 PM
Maybe it's pedantic, but following SB's paradgim, 1.2 would be "The world divides into hats". I concede that I had to walk to my bookshelf to check that.
2.1 We picture hats to ourselves.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 6:12 PM
According to this – the obvious, systematic typographical errors notwithstanding – proposition 1.2 states that the world divides into hats.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 6:13 PM
Jinx!
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 6:14 PM
Every day a pickled adder
A little bladder
Something deep-fried and battered
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-14-05 6:15 PM