Talk:List of oxymorons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For a March 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of oxymora

How did no-one see this page and not delete it before I got here? Anyway I'm glad they didn't. The page was a complete mickey-take, but now it atleast explains itself. Hope you all enjoy anyway, some funny stuff there. SimonMayer 01:47 20 Feb 2004 (GMT/UTC)

Some of the entries here definitely don't belong. There are some which fit the category of "non-oxymorons" as described in oxymoron, and there are some (such as airline food) which it would be a stretch to call an oxymoron in any sense of the term. I suggest listing the actual oxymorons and "non-oxymorons" separately to make this distinction, and completely scratching the garbage like airline food from the list. CyborgTosser 00:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Or perhaps keep airline food, etc. and move it to a third category. CyborgTosser 00:30, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The header for this article says it all:

This is a list of oxymora, phrases commonly mistaken for oxymora, or phrases that are falsely labelled an oxymoron for comic effect.

Perhaps this could be changed to:

This is a list of oxymora (O), phrases commonly mistaken for oxymora (M), or phrases that are falsely labelled an oxymoron for comic effect (C). (The codes could also be spelt out in full.)

And then each entry could have this code appended. Without this the list leaves it up to the reader who has prossibly come to the list because they don't really understand what an oxymoron is. --CloudSurfer 22:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Oxymorons

It's the plural of oxymoron in English. "Oxymora" is a preposterous affectation. Wetman 09:01, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How the times have changed. In the 1965 edition of Fowler's modern English usage "oxymoron" is listed amongs the words that "usually (or invariably)" take "-a" in the plural along with "criterion" and "phenomenon". Today Google returns 4140 hits for "oxymora" and 65,700 for "oxymorons". So it would appear that in 40 years usage has gone from the former to the latter. As to whether you can call it a preposterous affectation, well maybe in another 20 years. --CloudSurfer 10:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Interested by this I then looked at Google for "phenomenons" (47,300) and "phenomena" (4,220,000), "criterions" (34,800) and "criteria" (21,800,000). It looks like the more common the word is, the longer the original usage lasts. Which should not be a surprise. However give it time and just like the plural of "you" may some day be "youse" so might we all one day say "criterons" and "phenomenons". --CloudSurfer 10:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm sure we won't. What's happening with criterion and phenomenon is the opposite, that the -a forms are beginning to be used for the singular. Naturally, since reference to the plural of those concepts is more common than to the singular (not the case with oxymoron). When speakers/writers, especially younger ones, need to refer to the singular, they use the form they've seen, and so we get a criteria, a phenomena. I see that a lot in students' essays, and still correct it as an error, but maybe I won't for much longer. (This is User:Bishonen. I don't seem able to log in right now. :-() --213.238.211.112 11:20, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Isn't language a wonderful thing! Thanks for that insight. I guess it's like "there's" which now seems to mean "there are" and "there is". I am soon to give up on that one. Or adjectives used as adverbs. I think "whom" has all but disappeared. Perhaps there is no correct version, only one that makes sense. What do youse think? hehehehe. --CloudSurfer 23:39, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster online only gives oxymora as the plural. So it may not have achieved the level of preposterous affectation yet. SigPig 13:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
And if anyone gives a horse's patoot at this point, American Heritage online gives oxymora first, oxymorons second; Concise Oxford (11th Ed) does not give a plural, implying the -s plural. SigPig 02:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
"Youse" could be seen as a hyper-conservative form. The Goths had the form jūs (pronounced "yoose" to rhyme with goose), so the distant ancestors of the Angles and Saxons may well have had something like it. ;) Copey 2 04:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what the dictionaries say: people who say oxymora are mora, while people who say oxymorons are paraga of linguistic virtue. ;-) dbtfztalk 02:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Britain

Yes its a small country (compared to the US who need more space for the ubiquity of overfed fat arses) but the use of Great comes

  • Firstly from the inclusion of all its constituent parts (in comparrsion to Britannia Inferior and Superior during Roman Rule)
  • Secondly, and perhaps unneceassarily to distinguish ftom little Britain (Britanny)

The Great may be entirely unncessary, but it use with Britain does not make an oxymoron.

[edit] Shanedidona edit

Shanedidona you have reverted an addition of mine twice without explanation of your edit in the edit summary or the talk page, further more you have enter an addition that does not exist thus compromising the objectivity of wikipedia, This fall into the definition of vandalism. So in the future either argue your edits or refrain from editing the page. --LexCorp 05:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lexcorp Edits

How about a compromise? You will not delete Evolutionary Science and I will not delete Creation Science. Deal?--shanedidona

No there is no compromise. Creation Science falls within the definition of Oxymoron while there is no such thing as Evolutionary Science.If you are not satisfied then maybe is time for albitration. --LexCorp 16:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I tried Google searches on "Evolutionary Science" and "Creation Science", and indeed, the latter phrase is much more commonly used. Citations of "Evolutionary Science" were often in contexts that weren't even related to biological evolution, such as referring to some form of science (or science fiction) as "evolutionary" in the sense of being an incremental advance over earlier science / science fiction. Thus, "Evolutionary science" probably is not a sufficiently common phrase to be used here, and is not commonly regarded as an oxymoron anyway. (That's the relevant criterion; not whether something actually is an oxymoron, which can be subjective POV, but whether it's widely regarded as such.) "Creation science", on the other hand, is a common phrase which is widely regarded as oxymoronic, so it fits this page's criteria. Dtobias 17:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

Google Evolutionary Science and you will see this page: [1]

I see a larger dispute in this edit war. You want to eliminate a remark: "evolutionary science" which conflicts with your belief(s). I am willing to live with creation science on the page as the phrase is used for "comic effect." Please don't delete "evolutionary science" as that will be vandalism.

Well, then for us the less well informed can you define "evolutionary science" as the page you point to fails to do so. I ask so we can make an informed decision as to its fitness as an oxymoron. For my part I consider it to be a meaningless neologism and as such ut does not deserve to be included.--LexCorp 01:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evolutionary Science can be considered an oxymoron.--shanedidona

Why can you expain it?--LexCorp 01:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will. Do you have AIM, MSN, or Yahoo?

No mate do it here in public so that anyone can follow the argument.--LexCorp 01:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Good point. Evolutionary science can be considered an oxymoron by some because the modern-day evolution theory is not scientific.

Well my answer is that,
  • The term Evolutionary science is a meaningless neologism so it should not be included in the list just because of that.
  • The majority of scientist and people do consider the theory of evolution to be scientific and thus the argument that "Evolutionary science" is a oxymoron is false. Fisrt because the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the term "Evolutionary Science" and secondly because even if the term was somewhat related to the theory (somenthing I dispute) the great majority of people do consider it scientific.

--LexCorp 01:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Evolutionary science is a POV neologism. I'm not sure who decided this was an oxymoron, but the theory of evolution and science are about as hand-in-glove as one can get. Far better to try and posit "modern convenience" or "medical doctor" as oxymorons. Denni☯ 02:02, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

My basic premise is this: evolution as a "science" fails the test. The traditional hallmarks of science have always been observation, testability, and falsification. The scientific method has always followed these rules, which are:

  • Observe
  • Hypothesize
  • Test or collect data
  • Compare data to hypothesis
  • Modify hypothesis as needed

Science has always said that what you were studying had to be observable and measurable. Evolution as a science is neither observable (because it allegedly occurred millions of years in the past), nor testable because you cannot make it occur again as it supposedly happened. The mechanism by which evolution supposedly occurred, that is mutation and survival of the fittest, is considered improbable as a mechanism of evolution by the majority of evolutionists today. In addition, the fossil record which was originally proposed as the "proof" of evolution not only does not show the smooth transition of intermediate steps in the evolutionary continuum, but rather, the abrupt appearance of individual species within relatively short time spans. This fact has lead even die-hard evolutionists to admit that the fossil record is extremely lacking in evidence for evolution and caused them to develop their newer theory, which they refer to as "punctuated equilibrium." I was reading how one anthropologist referred to the lack of a fossil record for evolution as well as the lack a mechanism for evolution as being the "dirty little secret" of evolution. What this basically means is that evolutionists neither know how or why evolution occurred, or how they can make it occur again in the future. They are basically accepting the "fact" that it has occurred on faith. It seems to them that evolution has occurred. This is no different forum the creationist who looks as the world around himself and says "it seems that God has created this." Another main objection to the evolution theory is that out of the millions and millions of fossils studied, no truly transitional fossils have been found. Evolutionists try to act like there are currently species which are intermediate to one another, but no one has been able to show even one example of one species smoothly transitioning into another. If evolutionary theory were correct, every single species currently alive would be distinctly at some point in a smooth transition from another species. I have really enjoyed this discussion, but I have to move on now. Maybe will continue this again on a later date. (unsigned comment by shanedidona)

Yep, dump a bunch of nonsense then cut and run. Shanedidona conveniently forgets =his= "theory" is supported by no facts at all. He also displays a basic misunderstanding of evolution in his comments. Evolution did not happen "millions and millions of years ago". It is a process which is ongoing now. It is laughable to think that the punctuated evolution hypothesis was developed as some sort of conspiracy to pull the rug over the standard hypothesis. In fact, it is an example of science at its best, and follows exactly the schema didona sets out himself. The "no transitional forms" comment is rubbish. First, they exist. Ambulocetus natans is a fossil which is transitional between ancient land mammals and modern whales, but creationists don't want to hear about it because it disturbs their tidy argument. Second, the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis is intended to explain why transitional forms are not lying about everywhere. Third, we've only been at it a little over a hundred years. A thousand years from now, the picture will likely be a lot clearer, but the creationist perspetive won't have changed a bit. I suggest shanedidona read the February 2005 edition of Discovery magazine to see how scientists have been able to replicate the process of evolution on a computer. Denni☯ 17:12, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
Well I don't have the time nor the will (as I infer you are a creationist) to answer you point by point because there is plenty of info on the net about science and evolution in particular and I fear that if this is your view either you already made a choice of believe or you are confused . As a pointer I will say that the majority of your premises are false (as an example evolution is taking place as we write this). But this is neither here nor there. The fact is that the term Evolutionary science is a meaningless neologism that has nothing to do with evolution nor science. You still have not established the definition of Evolutionary science nor why it should not be considered a neologism nor its relation to the theory of evolution.So my reservations stand and as you can see I am not the only one. --LexCorp 03:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is an insult to people's intelligent. Most of the entries on it are in fact jokes. Anybody who actually wanted to find genuine oxymora would have to wade through a mass of cheap gags to find them. I'm going to propose that we at least separate out the 'gag' oxymora from the real ones. Any objections? DJ Clayworth 17:36, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good point aboiut the oxymora. The problem is that there are differing opinions on what is a joke oxymoron. (unsigned, copied from my talk page - DJC).

Good point. But I think we can insist that those that are logical contradictions are classed separately from those that are (essentially) insulting to someone. So "modest extravagance" (from Oxymoron) is clearly in a different class from "military intelligence", which requires the (POV) judgement that all military are stupid to be an oxymoron. What do you think? DJ Clayworth 20:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Go for it!


  • The problem with this is that it would lead to the removal of a large number of phrases which are generally considered to be oxymora (such as "military intelligence"). I would support your idea if you were able to suggest an article for these. I suspect that when people are looking for oxymora, it is most likely to be the humorous ones. Denni☯ 00:50, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

(entry below copied from my talk page DJ Clayworth)

You deleted several oxymora on 18 March. While maybe some of the ones you deleted indeed aren't oxymora, you otherwise seem to have gone through deleting stuff at random. Would you care to explain your changes? -- Smjg 16:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I went through the list splitting them into separate categories. As I did so I removed a few that were clearly not oxymora, nor even perceived or joke oxymora. I can't remember which ones exactly; it was quite a complex cut-and-paste operation. It is also possible that I lost some in the move by accident, in which case I apologise. If you think I omitted an important one please re-insert.

(Incidentally, Denni, "Military intelligence" is not a real oxymoron. Think about it) DJ Clayworth 16:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • If you reread my comment, you will see I used the term "generally considered to be", not "I believe it to be". What I =do= believe is that, if asked to provide an example of an oxymoron, more people would offer this one than any other. I am perfectly aware it is not a true oxymoron in the classical sense of the word. What is also true, however, is that the definition of "oxymoron" appears to be shifting away from pairs of words which are exact opposites (such as 'sweet sorrow' or 'black light') to pairs of words which are opposite in idea. As I recall, the article oxymoron also makes this hypothesis. Denni☯ 20:51, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

One must tread lightly in assigning oxymoron status to phrases. As it currently stands, "common difference" and "definite maybe" are two examples of phrases which have been shifted to 'perceived oxymora'; in my estimation, the literal meanings of the components are retained in their pairing. On the other hand 'poor little rich girl' is =not= an oxymoron; 'poor' refers not to financial status but to pity. I would posit that the majority of the terms reclassified as "perceived oxymora" are in fact genuine oxymora. Denni☯ 21:15, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

One of the functions of an encyclopedia is to provide correct facts. Many people don't understand what an oxymoron really is, and it's our job to give them correct examples. I have no problem with "military intelligence" being listed as a 'joke' oxymoron, but it is not a real one, and we should make sure that that fact is clear.

Having said that I do believe that there is a grey area between the 'perceived' oxymora and the real ones. I made a stab at separating them out, but I'm not absolutely certain that I got them all right. I'll give you my reasoning in a few cases.

One of my prime reasonings was that if there was an interpretation that really made sense then I classed it as 'perceived' "Common difference" caused me a lot of thought, but in the end end I came up with a sentence like "the families share a common difference - both parents are liberal and their children conservative". Here the difference is within the families, and the 'common' part is between them. "definite maybe" is similar. "I've definitely decided that my answer is neither yes nor no at this time" makes sense, and carries the same meaning as 'definite maybe'. "Poor little rich girl" - yes, you may be right there. I was a little hurried. Feel free to fix. DJ Clayworth 14:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"No comment" is not an oxymoron because it is not a comment about the subject you have been asked about, it's a comment about what you are saying about the subject. DJ Clayworth 13:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unremarkable

I have readded this to the list of 'actual' oxymorons. Please give a reason if you delete it. Milligan 12:54 EST Jan. 19, 2006.

The reason for deleting it is that it is not an oxymoron. Any oxymoron must contain two incompatible concepts, which this word does not. DJ Clayworth 17:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

True it does not contain two words, neither does Perminant Guest Host. To say somehting is unremarable requires one to remark on the thing. Hence it does contain two incompatible concepts in a single word. --Milligan 18:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I appriciate you responding to my first statement.

Nice try, but 'remarking' on something does not make it remarkable. Remarkable doesn't really mean that. Plus "there are millions of unremarkable trees in Alaska" is a perfectly sensible statement with no contradiction implied. DJ Clayworth 18:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reality television

Vote to move to Real oxymorons. Television is not reality. Lee M 01:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Real Oxymorons

(I moved this from my talk page - DJ Clayworth)

What isn't genuine about "awfuly good" (besides the spelling mistake) and "good grief"? Maybe "awfully" has another meaning, but "good grief"? -- Smjg 10:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

We need to be quire precise about this. Oxymoron does not just mean a contradiction. The article Oxymoron explains. I removed "awfully good" and "good grief" from genuine oxymora to perceived. This is because while they sound like a contradiction they are not. Awfully can mean 'very badly' but in modern usage it can also mean just 'very'. That's the sense it is being used in when it's in awfully good. As for 'good grief': firstly grief can in fact be good; it can be therapeutic, liberating and healthy. People not given a chance to grieve can suffer psychological problems. But secondly and more importantly 'good grief' is just an expression. It sounds like a contradiction, but it isn't. DJ Clayworth 13:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I suppose you're right about "awfully good". But as for "good grief", you don't offer any real explanation. Firstly, any conception that an inherent contradiction has an element of sense in it doesn't stop it from being an inherent contradiction. Many oxymora have inherent contradictions, and yet they make sense by some interpretation. Without them, this list would be practically empty. Secondly, the essence of an oxymoron is that the component words are contradictory - the fact of something being "just an expression" doesn't alter this at all. Sorry, but you haven't convinced me. Indeed, your statements could be used to claim almost any oxymoron isn't really so. -- Smjg 15:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'Good grief', when it is usually used, just means 'oh dear'. Neither of the words men what they normally mean. (Though it was originally referring to Jesus' death, I think). I don't think it's a contradiction any more than 'Holy cow' is a religious statement. DJ Clayworth 17:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, what meanings are the individual words "good" and "grief" put to in the phrase? -- Smjg 12:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
They don't mean anything. That's what I meant. As an expression they mean "oh dear" which doesn't carry any sense of contradiction. DJ Clayworth 13:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"completely destroyed" is absolutely not an oxymoron. It's not even a contradiction.If it's anything it's a tautology. 'completely' and 'destroyed' mean similar things not opposite things. (DJ Clayworth)

I know of no similar meanings that these two words have, and a quick search on OneLook reveals nothing to this effect. So what are you talking about? -- Smjg 09:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Completely can modify any verb; it means 'in its entirety'. So a pile of sand can be 'completely scattered' (i.e. all of it is scattered) a block of ice can be completely melted (all of it is melted) and something can be completely destroyed (i.e. all of it) DJ Clayworth 16:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course. But the point is that 'complete' can also mean 'existing/constructed in its entirety'. Quite a contrary concept to being destroyed. -- Smjg 11:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Also 'countless numbers' is not a contradiction. There are an infinite (i.e. countless) number of numbers, so it's easy to have a countless number of them. DJ Clayworth 13:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I remember being taught that infinity is not a number. -- Smjg 09:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why has "fast food" moved to the "Joke oxymora" section? -- Smjg 15:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

At best it's a perceived oxymoron. While 'fast' can mean 'go without food' here it clearly means 'quick'. It's no more an oxymoron than 'one pear'. DJ Clayworth 16:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
But you moved it from "Perceived oxymora". -- Smjg 11:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tight slacks

Actually, this is a legit oxymoron. Slacks are called that because they are loose-fitting, ie, "slack". So "tight slacks" belongs in the genuine oxymoron list. Denni☯ 23:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

But the meaning of the word has shifted so it basicly means trousers (pants to you merkins). DJ Clayworth 16:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Before you refer to me as a merkin, you should check my user page. It's a grievous insult to call a Canadian a merkin. Denni ☯ 01:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I would think that anyone, Canajun or otherwise, would object to being referred to as a merkin. That kind of language makes my hair curl. SigPig 14:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another random possible oxymoron

...what about "ice cold water"?

... Not even close. You'd need to find a way to make "ice hot water" make sense. Or try "solid liquid". -Silence 08:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Ice cold water is perfectly possible. At the freezing point of water ice and water can co-exist. DJ Clayworth 18:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
And ocean water, with its saline content, can get even colder. SigPig 14:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voluntary Surrender?

Is "voluntary surrender" an oxymoron? I think it should be added to the list. Ex. If someone points guns at your head, are you really surrendering voluntarily?

[edit] Sophomore

The etymology really isn't disputed; the common folk-etymology *is* oxymoronic, though. Scix 00:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

To me 'folk etymology' implies that it is wrong. If the etymology is wrong, then it isn't really an oxymoron, is it? DJ Clayworth 18:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've taken out 'new routine'. When a group of soldiers have a timetable they follow every day, and the sargeant posts a new one one day, that is their new routine. The fact that they haven't started doing it yet doesn't stop it being their routine. DJ Clayworth 18:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Same holds true for dance routines, comedy routines, gymnastic routines, and computer routines. SigPig 14:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lengthy brief

...also fits in the list of authentic oxymora. A brief is meant to be exactly that - a condensed summary of events. Denni ☯ 02:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the note about different kinds of infinity. It was only supposed to be a little jokey footnote, not a discussion on the nature of infinite numbers. DJ Clayworth 14:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revision notes

Noted that Civil War was missing; added.

"Never say never" isn't really an oxymoron. It's a semi-contradictory instruction, but it's not truly self-contradictory of the nature of a true oxymoron.

Also missing...

  • "Partially Completed" - While this would appear to be on the same caliber as "partially pregnant", it's my opinion that it belongs here. Placed in Perceived.
  • "Dodge Ram", a make and model of car whose very name is an oxymoron. Though, it's debateable as to what category this belongs in - so I'll place this in Perceived.
  • "Cherokee Pioneer", a model of Jeep. Not a true oxymoron, but the dichotomy is silly enough to be placed in the Joke category.
  • "Minor Disaster" can be considered a joke (and thanks to the late Jeff MacNelly, has images of a child with a hammer sitting amidst the destruction that was once a home stuck in my head), but it's ambiguous enough to warrant an entry in Perceived.
EDIT TO ABOVE - I forgot to sign in when I entered these. --Dennis The TIger 04:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Dodge Ram is not an oxymoron. "Dodge" refers to the company's founders, John Francis Dodge and Horace Elgin Dodge. The Dictionary of American Family Names lists the origins of "Dodge" as either: 1. from the Middle English personal name Dogge, a pet form of Roger; 2. possibly a nickname from Middle English dogge "dog" (Old English docga, dogga). "Ram" refers to a male sheep (note the hood ornament). The two are not even remotely connected (unless you think of "sheep-dog"). SigPig 14:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human guinea pig

Is this an oxymoron and should it be added somewhere to the list? Sweetie Petie 09:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • No, these words are not contradictory in meaning, which is required for an oxymoron. Denni ☯ 00:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, I just thought because humans aren't guinea pigs, that it might be one :( Sweetie Petie 09:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be oxymoronic if one were talking about the specific animal "guinea pig" (Cavia porcellus, et al); in this case it would be as oxymoronic as "human wombat" or "human celery stick". However, when one uses the term "guinea pig" to mean the subject of scientific experimentation, then a human subject can be safely referred to as a "human guinea pig". SigPig 14:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I wondered if it could go in the list of perceived oxymora if it wasn't a proper one. Sweetie Petie 16:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that would be appropriate, given the dual meaning of "guinea pig". SigPig 22:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Almost exactly

How is that an oxymoron? "Almost exactly" means just that - it's not exact. It's almost exact. It's quasi-exact. The margarine of exact, the Diet Coke of exact. Just one calorie - not an oxymoron. Don't give an Ameriflag 01:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is nothing contradictory about saying, e.g., "I am almost exactly six feet tall." I'm removing it from the list. dbtfztalk 02:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. You are either almost six feet, or you are exactly six feet - you can't be both at the same time. Restoring. Denni ☯ 00:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
"Almost" means something different, i.e. "just short of". 6 feet and 0.1 inches is "almost exactly 6 feet" but it's not "almost 6 feet". Proteus (Talk) 20:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military intelligence

Old joke, folks. Ha ha ha. That being said, re3gardless of your opinion of the intelligence (i.e. intellect) of the military, it means here information of a strategic or tactical nature. So please stop addidng it. SigPig 00:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Old joke or not, if it's a joke it should be worthy of being listed under joke oxymorons. Mikya 21:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Military intelligence is often a bit of a joke anyway - cf. weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I think it should stay. Denni ☯ 00:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "joke" for WMD. Are you asserting that the military is unintelligent because stockpiles of WMD have not been found in Iraq? That is beyond absurd due to the fact that the military has nothing to do with the development of that particular intelligence claim. It was the CIA who came up with the claim as well as President Clinton in his 1998 State of the Union Address to Congress where he asserted Iraq's nuclear capabilities. You asserting that the military is not intelligent because of the WMD situation in Iraq is ridiculous.Arnabdas 16:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I have no objection to it being inserted under "joke oxymorons" -- that's why the subsection is there. I am objecting to its being placed under actual oxymorons. SigPig 03:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dry ice

I'm moving "dry ice" to perceived oxymorons, unless someone has an objection. It is not oxymoronic. Ice is water in its solid state, hrnce it's dry -- when it's wet, the wet bit is liquid water, no longer ice. Dry ice is possibly a tautology. SigPig 03:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but dry ice is CO2, not H2O -- which is irrelevant, really. I have no objection to the change. Scix 23:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's not oxymoron, but it does specify a state of water ice that is far enough below freezing point not to melt when handled. Ice at freezing point will always be wet ice - now is that an oxymoron? Solid CO2 is also known as dry ice, but this is a colloquialism. It refers to the fact that, at atmospheric pressure, solid CO2 sublimes - that is, turns directly to gas without passing through a liquid phase. But CO2 is strictly not ice at all.--King Hildebrand 20:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
'Nother thought - "wet" usually means "having water adhering to", like a wet windowpane, or "having water absorbed within" like a wet blanket. Thus wet ice is a perfectly valid description of melting ice. The fact that the ice itself is solid does not affect this argument. Question - can water truly be described as wet? It is capable of wetting something else, but... Oh never mind!--King Hildebrand 20:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should move to "List of Contradictions in Terms" or cahnge lists and cut LOTS

The wikipedia entry oxymoron is quite clear that it must be used intentionally and that the conflict between the words used as rhetorical device a novel concept, "beggarly riches" being an example. Here we have as "genuine oxymorons" things arising from lazy use of language "academic schoralship" and phrases where the contradiction is set up as a rheorical device and to describe a new idea, say "creative destruction", as "percieved oxymorons". A Geek Tragedy 21:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem also exists in that many of the supposed "contradictions" are not truly contradictory. Someone readded "lengthy briefing" under "genuine oxymora", when (all literary references aside) it is not even contradictory. While brifing would seem to derive from the word brief, here's how the dictionaries define it:

an act or instance of giving precise instructions or essential information. (Merriam-Webster)[2]

1. The act or an instance of giving instructions or preparatory information to someone.
2. A meeting at which such information is presented.
3. The information conveyed at such a meeting.(American Heritage Dictionary)[3]

So a briefing is not necessarily brief. And anyone who has sat through one would undoubtedly agree. --SigPig 04:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
If this article is going to continue to have anything to do with oxymora, then genuine oxymora should list those deliberate rhetorical uses (beggarly riches, et al). The current crop of "genuines" (and I use air-quotes here) should be bumped down to perceived; if an oxymoron is a deliberate rhetorical device, then simple contradictions in terms like "genuine imitation" and whatnot are obviously misperceptions.
Ah, I don't know. This article is turning (already turned?) into a pile of crap. There's no rhyme nor reason, no cites, no explanations as to why any particular phrase is considered oxymoronic. I no longer think this list is maintainable, possibly unverifiable, and often wanders into the realm of the prairie oyster. If this came up for AfD, I might very well say "flush it." Can this list be saved? --SigPig 07:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title vs first line

The title is List of oxymorons, but the first line says List of oxymora. 218.186.9.3 09:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If you change oxymora to oxymorons some of us will think you're ignorant. If you change oxymorons to oxymora, the rest of us will think you're a bit precious. Which way are you going to go? ;) Copey 2 03:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unborn baby

Since the vast majority of us (including obstetricians and gynaecologists except in professional discourse) use the word baby to apply to both unborn and recently born humans, there is no oxymoron here, except among speakers of a minority political dialect. Copey 2 03:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. A baby is not a fetus, regardless of lay connotations. A baby is something that has been born. An unborn baby is a currently gestating lifeform that has not been born, it is an oxymoron. We all know what people mean any time they use an oxymoron, it is the essence of what makes oxymorons so interesting - obvious semantic discontinuities juxtaposed in a way that directly contradicts one or both of the terms while still conveying comprehensible meaning. It is a linguistic game, please take your own "minority politics" out of the issue. I am re-introducing it. Phyesalis 19:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Phyesalis. Perhaps I expressed myself a little offensively (only a little), but I still hold to what I said. Sorry, but you can't disregard lay connotations. One of the things you learn in the first week of studying linguistics is that the correctness in language is determined by usage, not by external authority. If people use the word "baby" to mean "fetus", then "fetus" is one of the meanings of "baby". This is probably the most fundamental principle of linguistics. Technical language is a dialect, or rather, a range of different dialects for different technical fields. Speakers of technical dialects cannot dictate use among other English speakers.
A science professor is undoubtedly right if he pulls up a student in class for using the word "steam" in reference to visible water vapour, rather than the actual gas. He is wrong, he is even ignorant, if he pulls up his child in the kitchen for using the word same way. The use of "steam" to mean water vapour is older than the scientific use of the word, and there is no authority that gives scientists - or any other academic specialists - the right to insist that lay language is incorrect where it differs from technical language, especially where technical language has changed the meaning to suit its own needs.
Occasionally lay language will take technical usage on board. 500 years ago it was perfectly legitimate to call a whale a fish, because people used the word "fish" to include whales, even if they were aware that whales suckled their young. The first scientist to tell people that it was a mistake to call a whale a fish was in fact wrong. But the scientists won out (and good for them), and the distinction between fish and whale passed into the common language. In any form of English, it is wrong to call a whale a fish. In the Māori language of New Zealand, where I live, the word ika is usually translated "fish", but its meaning also includes cetaceans. Anyone who insists that a whale is not an ika may be right in their science, but they are ignorant of the language. There is no anomaly in a Māori marine biologist calling a whale an ika.
It's possible, though I would be very surprised, that where you live (US? Somewhere in Britain?), people do carefully preserve the distinction between baby and fetus; that a pregnant woman will say quite naturally, "I felt my fetus kick this morning"; that after she has a scan, someone will say, "Is your fetus a male or a female?", rather than, "Is your baby a boy or a girl?" (I'm guessing that you don't apply the terms boy and girl to the unborn either?). If that is true, then in your own local dialect, "unborn baby" is an oxymoron. On the other hand, if you say, "Well no, the people I know would probably say 'baby' rather than 'fetus' in these contexts, BUT THEY ARE WRONG!" then, however right you may be in your science, you are ignorant of basic linguistics, of this aspect of it at least.
The bottom line is, it's the way people use words, nothing else, that determines what the words mean. In your comment line on your reversion in the article, you call my reversion of your original edit "unwarranted". We could argue over this, and it would boil down to a difference of usage. I understand unwarranted to mean "having no real justification whatever". I suspect you mean something like, "having insufficient justification". I very much doubt that either of us is unique in the particular fine shade of meaning we apply to the word, and we could both find differences among our friends in the ways they understand the words. Neither side can dictate to the other, both are right; but we may sometimes need to stop and sort out what we each mean.
Ignorant of linguistics or not, you obviously appreciate language, and handle it in a way that commands respect. I intend to change the "unborn baby" entry again, but there is room for discussing how it is changed. Here is how I see issue:
    • The use of the word "baby" when talking of a fetus is very widespread in English, and probably represents the usage of the majority of speakers. (In fact I think it's probably all but universal). Majority (or even widespread) usage is correct usage by definition. Therefore, measured against the usage of most English speakers, "unborn baby" is not an oxymoron.
    • Technical language, in the interest of clarity and with the need for fine distinctions, uses words more precisely (not "more correctly") than non-technical language. Sometimes this means narrowing the meaning of words in common usage; occasionally it may mean discarding the original meaning (as in the case of steam). As a result, non-technical use of phrases may set up resonances of contradiction or paradox for users of technical language that are not present for the rest of us.
    • In the light of this, can we reach a compromise? I don't know if there's a case for coining a term like "oxymoronism" (is that too horrible?) to describe the mental process involved in perceiving oxymoron. Can we postulate a particular kind of "perceived oxymoron" that might be called (?) a "technical oxymoron", arising from a specialised linguistic framework? To do that, we would need to find other examples.
Can we reach some sort of agreement here?
You were rude, but I accept your apology. Thank you. I too have gotten a little hot under the collar at times, no shame in it as long as one owns up to it. I never mentioned linguitstics, but used the adjective "linguistic" which refers to natural language. But, the first thing I learned in the study of semantics was the difference beween denotative and connotative. The first thing I learned in Semiotics was the difference between a sign, the signified, and the signifier, and then the commutation test.
  • Fetus is neither a neologism, nor a "technical" word, unless your using "technical" to mean "denotative". It has meant "a gestating lifeform" for centuries, since 1398 from the latin "fetus" meaning "the bearing, bringing forth or hatching of young". And of course, longer than that in Latin, which got it from Greek. Now, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought "baby" came from a term related to babbling, inherently implying that the babbler had been born.
  • "Baby" denotes "infant". Try a Commutation test (semiotics) with "baby" and "fetus". "The baby cried, and then crawled off." Now, substitute "fetus". The fetus cried, and then crawled off." DOES NOT WORK. "Baby" fails the commutation test for "fetus". It's actually pretty simple. What is signified is a being whose most significant quality (with respect to the sign) is having been born. The primary difference between the two words is that one signifies a state of gestation and the other signifies a state of being born.
  • Words have specific denotative meanings, then they have meanings that people attribute to them regardless of the denotative meaning, that would be the connotative meaning, often called slang. Baby is slang for the correct term fetus. "Fetus" has lots of slang terms besides "baby", like "bun in the oven" or "little bean". And, yes, I live in the U.S.. But oddly enough, no one thinks the meaning of "bun" or "bean" is fetus.
  • More accurately, "baby" is a Euphemism for "fetus". It is "an expression intended by the speaker to be less offensive, disturbing, or troubling to the listener than the word or phrase it replaces, or in the case of doublespeak to make it less troublesome for the speaker." (WP) A baby is an independent physical being that has left the womb - that's why when using the word "baby" we add "unborn" to acknowledge the fact that it hasn't been born - which is what makes the phrase an oxymoron. Do we commonly call zygotes, blastocytes and embryos "babies"? No. Because they, like fetuses, signify a state of gestation. They are not "babies". Does a doctor say "I'm sorry but the baby we implanted in the last IVF treatment didn't successfully take to the uterine wall?" Probably not. Euphemisms are completely acceptable for use between two parties who do not dispute its use (like a doctor and a pregnant woman who is excited about her pregnancy), that doesn't make a euphemism the correct definition of a word. "Having a roll in the hay" is a euphemism for sex. When one parses out the denotative meanings of the phrase, there is no understanding of sex outside the social context of the euphemism.
  • Your argument is based on your premise that we all know what baby means and what unborn baby means. Again, the same is true for every oxymoron listed. Comprehension is one of the two main characteristics of an oxymoron. Your logic is fallacious. I'm afraid we cannot come to an agreement unless you agree to leave the phrase on the list. Phyesalis 19:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Per our conversation on my talk page, I have taken C's response out of my post and reposted it below (Phyesalis 14:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)}:

Response:: The underlying syllogism here seems to be this:
      • Given: Two count nouns, A and B, and a verb "to do X"
      • The sentence "The A did X," is a valid one.
      • The sentence "The B did X," is not a valid one.
      • Therefore an A cannot be a B
Have I stated that fairly? I think I have. I honestly believe you're smart enough to spot the flaw in this for yourself. If your semiotics teacher(? professor? lecturer?) really taught you this, then s/he needs to told that it's flawed. However, I take it for granted that someone in a high-level teaching position knows what they're talking about in their own field, so I think it's likelier you have misconstrued the model. Copey 2 02:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe this discussion can be cut shorter by reference to within Wikipedia regarding pregnancy. Quoted from there: "The medical term for a pregnant woman is genetalian, just as the medical term for the potential baby is embryo (early weeks) and then fetus (until birth)."

Concerning this quote, it seems the most common term is baby, not embryo or fetus; just as a pregnant woman is not generally called a genetalian.

Also quoted from there: "In the context of political debates regarding a proper definition of life, the terminology of pregnancy can be confusing. Because precise assessment of a pregnancy as being at the "embryo" or "fetus" stage is usually undeterminable, the terms (though more clinically precise) are less commonly used than terms like "baby" or "child." The medically and politically neutral term which remains is simply "pregnancy," though this can be problematic as it only refers indirectly to the embryo or fetus. In the context of personal treatment, bedside manner generally dictates that doctors make sparse use of clinical language like "fetus" and "embryo," and instead simply refer to the developing child as a "baby", though this is not medically accurate."

Concerning this quote, it seems that 'unborn baby' is only an oxymoron when considering medical terminology, instead of common use of language. I highly doubt that this entry was meant to be an oxymoron under only those conditions. In other words: when you would ask, most persons would not find the terms 'unborn baby' to be contradictory, since what a pregnant woman has in her belly is generally referred to as a baby by most people.

As another added piece of weight: even the Wikipedia article on pregnancy refers to the fetus as 'baby' in the description of the third trimester.

I hereby will remove 'unborn baby' from the list, not only because I believe it to be incorrect, but also because I feel the correctness of this oxymoron has to be proven before it makes the list, instead of the other way around. By leaving it on the list, it will create confusion and the addition of other (in my eyes) flawed oxymorons.

Hi unsigned, you didn't know because we just reached an agreement, but we are discussing this semantic issue on my talk page (see "message from Copey2"). I don't usually use Wikipedia to cite my sources (since you're not allowed to cite WP for another WP article). I prefer the National Institutes of Health's Medical Dictionary for medical definitions, which by the way, defines fetus as an unborn or unhatched vertebrate, esp:"a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth -- compare EMBRYO") and embryo "especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception -- compare FETUS" As for baby (an extremely young child; especially : INFANT ) to "infant" ("a child in the first year of life: BABY"). Now, do you think they're confused and somehow imply that the first year of a child's life is up at 3 months after birth (given the previous 9 of gestation)? I don't think that is correct. Again, baby is a euphemism for fetus. But this isn't a medical issue, oxymorons that is, it is an issue of language. Please leave the phrase on the list as Copey2 and I have already agreed to do. We are actually having a lovely discussion about semantics and semiotics and we'd love to have you join us, if you'd like to discuss language. Phyesalis 14:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Took me some time to consider fully what to do about your reponse. It paints you as a very arrogant and patronising person, just as in your previous initial responses to Copey. I do not agree with your standpoint; a medical oxymoron it might be, but a common one it isn't. Nor does there seem to be a real agreement on your talk page with Copey; just an agreement to discuss the matter and the language. But I have better things to do than discussing this issue with someone as arrogant and patronising as you... so good luck with your entry, you may keep it, for you clearly are not open-minded enough to see any views other than your own.
Again, unsigned, please re-read our exchanges on this page and my talk page. Please notice that Copey introduced politics and you introduced medicine and women. I am discussing language. "Genetalian" has nothing to do with our discussion of the nature of oxymora. Copey and I have agreed to have a civil discussion, I never said that we have come to an agreement about the word, but an agrement to leave the word while we discuss it. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I used the language that I did in my last response because it is correct and because I was trying to establish a tone - we are having what I consider to be a civil and interesting discussion about this, if you would like to be civil and interesting, you too are welcome to join on my talk page which is where we agreed to address this. You made irrelevant statements based on dubious sources (WP), I provided you with correct and relevant information from a valid source. If you think that I am "arrogant and patronising" for doing so, or for trying to establish a particular tone in our discourse (civility and an insistence on relevant verifiable information - which is what makes it interesting), such is your choice. Forgive me for assuming this was the standard for discourse communities. As for being open-minded, that's somewhat irrelevant also, you see, again, this isn't about politics or medicine, this is about oxymora. Actually, Copey has an excellent bit about views on partonization. You might want to reread it in order to get a scope of the conversation, and an understanding of what is actually disputed. For the record, our discussion on my talk page is discussing the common language distinctions between "baby" and "fetus" deriving from issues/conditions of natality. Please sign your posts. Thank you. Phyesalis 19:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
If you cannot see the patronizing nature of remarks such as 'if you would like to be civil and interesting' and 'Forgive me for assuming this was the standard for discourse communities.' and 'You might want to reread it', then you are a poor creature indeed. No amount of formalized talk and represented correctness can disguise the obvious contempt with which you approach others.

[edit] Perceived and Joke Oxymora

I agree with the striking of "Christian Science" and "Compassionate Conservative". Phyesalis 02:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Depression

I think it should be there. -Monkey 13!!! 02:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Many of the oxymora should be moved to "Perceived"

"Jumbo Shrimp" is the most flagrant example of a perceived oxymoron that is, in fact, not an oxymoron at all. The complete list of the ones I noticed as misclassified are:

  • a fine mess
perceived -- though not common, "fine" has the sense "great", "terrific", or "awful", used as an intensifier
  • a little big
perceived -- "a little" means slightly. "big" can mean "too big" as in "this shirt is big on me".
  • absolutely unsure
perceived -- "absolutely" can mean "completely". A person who is not the least bit sure is completely unsure.
  • adult children
perceived -- "children" can mean the immediate progeny of human parents, and as such can be of any age.
  • almost always
perceived -- "almost" means nearly. Nearly always means just about every time.
  • almost perfect
perceived -- "almost" means nearly. Nearly perfect means having very few imperfections.
  • assisstant supervisor
perceived and misspelled -- an "assistant x" is one who assists x. To be an actual oxymoron, x would have to be the sort of entity incapable of being assisted.
  • awfully nice
perceived -- "awfully" is used as an intensifier.
  • big baby
perceived -- "baby" can mean "small" as in "baby potato" but that's never the sense in which it is used in conjunction with big. Rather, a "big baby" is a larger than usual size baby.
  • bittersweet
perceived -- "bitter" and "sweet" are two tastes, each with their own set of receptors on the tongue that can exist together.
  • blinding light
perceived -- a bright light can cause temporary, or even permanent blindness. If this were a real oxymoron, then deafening noise would be here too.
  • false positive
perceived -- here "positive" means a positive result from a test. A false positive, is a positive that is in error.
  • friendly fire
perceived -- "friendly" describes an intent that is not hostile. "fire" is the discharge of weapons. Together, these terms have been used to mean the discharge of weapons without hostile intent toward those who were injured by the weapons. Nothing oxymoronic here.
  • half dead
perceived -- there is no sense in which half is the opposite of dead. It may be poor grammar, as is "very unique" but it's not an oxymoron.
  • highly depressed
perceived -- highly means very.
  • jogging stroller
perceived -- even if jogging had a sense opposite stroller, that's not the sense of jogging here. "Jogging x" (as in jogging shoes) means x that can be used in conjunction with jogging.
  • jumbo shrimp
perceived -- jumbo is an adjective that means large, and though shrimp can mean small, in this expression it means a small marine decapod crustacean
  • killed by death
not an oxymoron -- maybe belongs to the department of redundancy department
  • larger half
perceived -- there is a sense in which half means one of a pair, not necessarily exactly equal.
  • loud whisper
perceived -- though generally soft, whispers can vary in loudness. One that is louder than most can be termed "loud", just as a flee larger than most can be termed a "big flee".
  • power nap
perceived -- a "power x" is an x that causes or is associated with power, such as a power lunch or a power tie. A power nap is no different.
  • resident alien
perceived -- "alien" means "of foreign origin". There's nothing contradictory about a resident who is of foreign origin.
  • silent alarm
perceived -- an "alarm" can be any signal that calls attention to a condition. The signal may be a sound or a light, or any of a number of other things, so it makes perfect sense to qualify the alarm to characterize the type of signal it is.
  • suicide victim
perceived -- my dictionary (Merriam Webster Unabridged) gives as one of the definitions of victim "someone who suffers death, loss, or injury in an undertaking of his own, as in: became a victim of his own ambition"
  • sweet and sour
perceived -- "sour" and "sweet" are two tastes, each with their own set of receptors on the tongue that can exist together. Moreover, a substance perceived as "sour" is one that is acidic. That is, it has a low pH. Acids do not interfere with or react with sugars, so both may exist simultaneously in the same aqueous solution.
  • synthetic natural gas
perceived -- "natural gas" is a substance also known as methane, which can be created in a laboratory or factory.
  • tight slacks
perceived -- "slacks", though originally referring to loose-fitting trousers, is now a term that refers to trousers of any kind.

—GraemeMcRaetalk 00:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that at the moment, "adult children" is both in the real and perceived list. 213.118.60.239 03:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate Entries

I see a lot of entries that are on both lists. It would confuse readers.Arnabdas 16:50, 26 March 2007 EST

[edit] Cheap Gas

Is this a joke? I understand that gas costs a lot now but is it a oxymoron? silentsam84 12:55, 4 April 2007 CST

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_oxymorons_78d1.html"