Homonyms which are nearly antonyms

[jmcd]

More like a minimal pair with minimal connection in meaning.

[Herr Dunkel]

More like a minimal pair with minimal connection in meaning.

Well, yeah. Pretty much.

[Jipí]

I fail to see the semantic connection between fecals and a bosom. Your association by connotation seems far-fetched to me. >:|

It may have been mentioned above, but I've just stumbled on prescribe/proscribe. The former means 'to order sth to be done' the latter means 'to forbid sth to be done' as far as the translations in my dictionary are accurate.

[Herr Dunkel]

I fail to see the semantic connection between fecals and a bosom. Your association by connotation seems far-fetched to me. >:|

You do know that connotation = "A meaning of a word or phrase that is suggested or implied, as opposed to a denotation, or literal meaning.", right?

[Jipí]

Yes, and?

Well, they're not exactly antonyms, truth be told, but they have opposite connotations

Oh, I see. Well then. You may go on being smug this time.

[Ċeaddawīc]

Continuing with the "can" and "can't" pair, I'd just like to input my two cents. Everyone transcribes "can't" with a glottal stop after [n], but to me it seems that when people say "can't", it's more like [kæn̥] or maybe even [kæn̆n̥̆].

So: [kæn] and [kæn̥], although I'd like to point out that I have no idea how people have a hard time distinguishing these, as I've never had trouble.

[Ser]

So: [kæn] and [kæn̥], although I'd like to point out that I have no idea how people have a hard time distinguishing these, as I've never had trouble.

Because they sound too similar to each other? I'm saying this from the point of view of a non-native tho.

[Hakaku]

Stumbled upon this recently in Okinawan:

ふぃーかじ【冷風・寒風】 fiikaji "a cold wind; a cold breeze"
ふぃーかじ【火風】 fiikaji "a hot wind; a scorching wind; blazing heat"

[finlay]

Continuing with the "can" and "can't" pair, I'd just like to input my two cents. Everyone transcribes "can't" with a glottal stop after [n], but to me it seems that when people say "can't", it's more like [kæn̥] or maybe even [kæn̆n̥̆].

So: [kæn] and [kæn̥], although I'd like to point out that I have no idea how people have a hard time distinguishing these, as I've never had trouble.

Definitely not for me – there's no voicelessness, just [nʔ]. I can feel and hear the glottal stop releasing when I say it in isolation. [n̥] sounds completely different to me (although I'm not saying you don't have it), more like [hn] than [nʔ], and I definitely can't distinguish it from [n] normally. I think we live in different places, though.

the glottal poa does weird things... ʔ is not voiceless, but is rather the absence of phonation, and it can be better to think of the glottal poa as the absence of any other poa, since the glottis is where voicing happens anyway.

I'm under the impression that AmE does ca[nt̚], anyway. I may be completely wrong in this.

Whatever the realisation of "can/can't", it's a stupid distinction to have to make on just the final consonant, and really annoying when you don't really make it any other way. Virtualy all dialects of English have unstressed [kən] for "can" and no unstressed version of "can't", which means it doesn't necessarily come up as often as you'd think, but plenty of dialects have solutions – England-English tends to have a BATH vowel in "can't", so they make the distinction [kæn] and [kɑːnt], although I'd have to verify whether this happens in Northern accents because I can't remember. And I reckon it's half the reason why people say 'cannae' in Scotland – it's certainly an advantage if you do use it, although I don't personally...

[Rui]

Definitely not for me – there's no voicelessness, just [nʔ]. I can feel and hear the glottal stop releasing when I say it in isolation. [n̥] sounds completely different to me (although I'm not saying you don't have it), more like [hn] than [nʔ], and I definitely can't distinguish it from [n] normally. I think we live in different places, though.

the glottal poa does weird things... ʔ is not voiceless, but is rather the absence of phonation, and it can be better to think of the glottal poa as the absence of any other poa, since the glottis is where voicing happens anyway.

I'm under the impression that AmE does ca[nt̚], anyway. I may be completely wrong in this.

People from Connecticut have a knack for ʔ following n all over the place (the typical example is "mountain" [maʊn.ʔn̩]...actually, I'd guess that at least for me, it's more like [mãʊ.ʔn̩], i.e. complete nasalization of the <ou>). I would say in the case of "can't," it's conditioned by the following word, since ʔ is a pretty "weak" consonant...it can range from ʔ to t̚ etc. etc.

Though actually, the "mountain" example is generally for nt followed by a syllabic nasal, because words like "winter" just delete the /t/ altogether (i.e. [wɪ.ɾ̃ɹ̩])...

but plenty of dialects have solutions – England-English tends to have a BATH vowel in "can't", so they make the distinction [kæn] and [kɑːnt], although I'd have to verify whether this happens in Northern accents because I can't remember.

Yeah, New York English has this as well, but it's [æ] vs. [eə]

[Travis B.]

I hate the pair can versus can't, as can't in very many (North American) English varieties sounds like can in my own dialect in the same positions.

For starters, can't unambiguously takes a short vowel while can takes either a short vowel or a long vowel depending on environment (or either utterance-finally). And even for other dialects with similar allophonic vowel length systems, the actual lengths may not match to what is expected in my dialect. Hence perceiving the "wrong" vowel length can easily turn a can't into a can and vice versa unless there is a clear [t] or [ʔ] present in a can't.

Another thing is that very many NAE varieties tend towards frequently having something like [ˈkʰæ̃n] for can't, which sounds much more like my can [ˈkʰɛ̃(ː)(n)] (with long vowels except before fortis obstruents, and very frequent loss of the [n] anywhere but especially before vowels and glides or when less stressed) than my usual pronunciation of can't, which is [ˈkʰɛ̃̂ʔ] (except before a vowel, glide, or nasal, where then it is frequently but not always [ˈkʰɛ̃̂n], or before a vowel or glide, where it may also be just [ˈkʰɛ̃̂]).

On the other hand, the [kn̩] that very many NAE varieties tend towards having for can is not ambiguous to me, even though this is not a form I tend to use much generally except that I will often have [kn̩(ː)] for can when unstressed (but I am not sure how exactly this alternates with [ˈkʰɛ̃(ː)], which I often have in that same position, except that tends to be at least a bit more stressed).

Note that can and can't are still very well-distinguished in my own dialect, but it is vowel length (and how it is conditioned) combined with pitch accent that really distinguish them therein, things that really do not serve well for distinguishing them crossdialectically even just within NAE.

[AnTeallach]

Whatever the realisation of "can/can't", it's a stupid distinction to have to make on just the final consonant, and really annoying when you don't really make it any other way. Virtualy all dialects of English have unstressed [kən] for "can" and no unstressed version of "can't", which means it doesn't necessarily come up as often as you'd think, but plenty of dialects have solutions – England-English tends to have a BATH vowel in "can't", so they make the distinction [kæn] and [kɑːnt], although I'd have to verify whether this happens in Northern accents because I can't remember. And I reckon it's half the reason why people say 'cannae' in Scotland – it's certainly an advantage if you do use it, although I don't personally...

Most Northern English accents have PALM (not TRAP=BATH) in can't, though there's some variation.

I suspect the use of the long vowel in this word may have spread because it enhances the distinction; it isn't even clear that it has the same origin as in BATH words where the vowel is followed by a nasal (chance, chant, example, demand etc.) where Northern English has TRAP.

[finlay]

grey areas where the sets don't match up. i only call it BATH because it looks like it "should" be that because of the phonetic environment and because it's a back vowel that I don't have myself. But then i don't have a back vowel for PALM either (usually).