Conference thebay::joyoflex

       cleave
       
       table???

   ravel

tlh

re .1:

chiefly in British usage, the verb "table" means to put a topic ON the agenda
for discussion.  I looked it up in Webster's after an arkward incident 
in which I was participating in a meeting and repeatedly used "table" 
in this second sense.  Where I picked it up, I know not. Needless to say,
everyone else was a bit confused....

re .2:
ravel?

       re .3 (re 'ravel'):
       
       I wondered about that one, too, but tlh is (as might be expected)
       on the money.  The Concise Oxford Dictionary says that 'ravel'
       means 'entangle', and it also means 'disentangle'.
       
       --Don

  comprise

jive (comparing its use as a verb and as an adjective)

I think "jive" is consistent.  However, it is often confused with "jibe,"
which has a more-or-less opposite meaning.

JP

    westerly - used to describe current
    	     - used to describe wind 
    
    (also easterly etc.)

    top - to put the top on something (a lid on a jar for example)
    
    top - to cut the top off of something (a tree or shrub for example)
    
    

    "get the lead out" means go faster.
    
    "he has a lead foot" means he should go slower.
    
    	Rick
    

< Note 107.11 by REGENT::MERRILL "Win one for the Glypher." >
                                   -< lead >-

<    "get the lead out" means go faster.
    
<    "he has a lead foot" means he should go slower.
    
<    	Rick
 

Unless I'm missing something, the word LEAD is used to convey the same meaning
in both phrases.  In case #1 sans LEAD you go faster, in case #2, you've got
the LEAD (unsans) therefore you go slower, all seems very logical to me.

Mark   

    Re .12:
    
    "He has a lead foot" means he is going too fast.
    
    Still I agree that in both cases "lead" means the heavy metal lead.
    In the first case, getting rid of it will let one go faster, in
    the second case, one is in an automobile where the driver's foot
    is very heavy on the accelerator pedal.
    
    > in case #2, you've got the LEAD (unsans) therefore you go slower, 
    > all seems very logical to me.
    
    This is not what Rick said, and it is not what the phrase means.
    
    	/
       (  ___
    	) ///
       /
                                                      

			_suffer_
Dave

All the words in this topic are really just a subclass of homophonic antonyms,
namely homographic homophonic antonyms ;^).  An example of the larger class is
the pair reckless and wreckless (as in driving).

Question:  Are there any homographic heterophonic antonyms?

Wook

    Are these homophonic heterographic antonyms?  (I'm getting confused.)
    
    Raze:	to reduce something to rubble
    Raise:	to build something

    
    
    Lays:       to be in motion, actively doing something
    Laze:       motionless

    You drive on a parkway.
    You park on a driveway.
    
    except:
    You park on a parkway during rush hour.

    Strike  (think sports)
    
    Stroke

re: original note

the granddaddy of them all:  inflammable



--angela

re .-1

Huh?  "Inflammable" has only one meaning -- "it will burn".

    Which is why two new words, flamable and non-flamable, came into use.
    
    					andrew

    Re .24, .25, .26: French has the two words "inflammable" (will burn)
    and "ininflammable" (will not burn).
    			Denis.

    For some reason, "inflammable" confuses people but "inflammatory"
    doesn't.
    

    Two idiots recently posted garbage and they should know better.
    The English language has the word "flammable" but "non-flammable"
    no longer exists.  And similarly, the French language no longer has
    the word "ininflammable."  The propagation of computer networks is
    responsible for the loss of those words :-)

.26>    ... two new words, flamable and non-flamable, came into use.

Those are adjectives that describe Notes conferences, right?

.29>    Two idiots recently posted garbage ...

This example clearly shows that JOYOFLEX clearly is a flamable conference.  For
comparison, ASKENET is intended to be a non-flamable conference.

    <spoiler alert>
    
    Flammable - adj. easily set on fire; inflammable.  Flammability, n.
    
    Usage:  Either flammable or inflammable can be used when referring to
    the properties of materials.  Flammable is, however, often preferred
    for warning labels as there is less likelihood of musunderstanding
    (inflammable being sometimes taken to mean not flammable).  The word
    that does mean not flammable is nonflammable.
    
    source: Collins English Dictionary
    
    Nick

    inflammable = likely to become inflamed.
    

    Looking at inflammable and flammable via their Latin root gives us a
    slight difference in meaning:
    
    Flammable derives from flamma = flame + habilis = fit, suitable. 
    Hence, flammable means "suitable for burning," which becomes "able to
    burn."
    
    Inflammable derives from in = into + flamma = flame + habilis = fit,
    suitable.  hence, inflammable means "suitable for being put into
    flame," which becomes "able to be set on fire."
    
    There is an additional meaning of habilis = convenient, which enables a
    further suggestion that inflammable means "easily set on fire" while
    flammable means 'easy to burn."  This difference suggests the subtle
    difference between an inflammable substance such as gasoline, which is
    easy to ignite, and a flammable one such as thermite, which is not easy
    to ignite but which burns like fury when ignited.

I stumbled across another one; in my Digital Standard Issue American Heritage 
Dictionary, "incandescent" is listed as a symonym for "candescent."

The derivation of "candescent" is stated as _candescere_, "to shine" while 
the derivation of "incandescent" is stated as "_incandescere_' "to glow".

In the AHD, the derivation of "inflammable" is stated as _inflammare_, "to 
inflame".

It appears to me that the apparent anomaly is because the prefix "in-" has 
two uses, one to state a positive relationship (poor choice of words, but I 
can't think of more precise terms) and one to state a negation.

Clay

    In re .34
    
    >It appears to me that the apparent anomaly is because the prefix "in-" has 
    >two uses,
    
    This opinion certainly deserves some reinforcement.

    Eighteen months later...
    
    How about French "habitable" = English "inhabitable" (and also English
    "habitable", to be a little confusing), whereas French "inhabitable" =
    English "uninhabitable" ?
    
    It's things like this that make it fun !

         Wow, that's not just a "faux ami," that's a "vrai ennemi!!"

    How about English "public school", which means a fee-paying private
    school ? (The school doesn't pay the fees !)
    
    In England, if something "goes down like a bomb" it's very successful,
    whereas in America, if something "bombs"...
    
    I have heard of a bus-conductor (he takes the money, il ne conduit pas
    le bus) saying to a poor confused tourist attempting to board a full
    bus "Come on, get off !"
    

    	The English term "public school" was originally quite accurate. At
    the time they were founded most schools were private. Typically the
    lord of the manor would have schooling for his children from the local
    curate (or if he was rich, a full time tutor), and if he was generous
    he might invite children of his more deserving and respectable
    neighbours. The only other schooling was in monasteries.
    
    	The public schools were open to anyone who had enough money, and
    often provided scholarships for a small number of deserving poor as
    well. Unlike the monasteries there were no religious implications, so
    even Jews were accepted sometimes. They still work this way.
    
    	"Providing education to any member of the public that can afford
    it" is what it originally meant, rather than "owned by the government".
    In the days when the government owned no schools there was no
    possibility of confusion. Anyone who has attempted to get into a secure
    government establishment can tell you that "state owned" is not
    synonymous with "public".
    
    	You have possibly heard of the row about French national schooling,
    where the French minister of education has ordered that Muslim girls
    wearing veils may not be admitted to national schools. One of the
    proposals of the Muslim community in France is to establish "public"
    schools in the sense that they would be open to any member of the public, 
    even if they wore a veil. They would obviously not be state owned or
    funded.

    The Canadian economic arena is divided into two sectors:
    The private sector is that which is controlled by the government,
    and the public sector is that which is controlled by no one.
    
    (Not original.)