Hard to do with my head turned inside out. Forget it, they'll smear my Nair daubs anyway.
I was wondering where Ben was going to put one of those.
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 w-lfs-n'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 scarf
An anti-Scarf.
I think that's been revealed.
You stay away from Ben's corrigendum, now.
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.
if we have ceased being silly
Apparently not.
I find text's argument rather compelling, actually, apo.
"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.
That sexcerpt wasn't very titillating.
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.
Not if you read it literally, no.
The opposite of hat is probably in this boy's wardrobe.
Did the boy who reversed himself grow up to be John Kerry?
Geddit? Geddit?
He grew up to be John Kerry before he didn't grow up to be John Kerry.
Oddly enough, that's the part that I remember most clearly.
The opposite of Unfogged.
Who quits their "J-O-B"? It's not like the boss can't spell.
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?
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?
I'm glad this is settled, and decisively. Thanks, text.
Way to cross-post with a goddam question there, apo. The answer, of course, is yes, it certainly is.
Your confidence is charming. Color me agnostic on the question.
I have contributed to humankind's store-house of knowledge! Now I can go back to office tedium, occasionally rendering an inartful cock joke.
SB agreed with me in 14, and then took it back in 22.
He merely paraphrased Niels Bohr in 14.
But it had the perlocutionary effect of making ac think he agreed with her.
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?
Indeed it did, but that's ac's problem.
After further consideration I think that mustaches are negation, and not opposition, operators.
But Niels Bohr agrees with me. So that's something.
now it is I who enjoy S.B.'s favor! Standpipe wears my colours, in all his versing glory!
in no way do I mean to undermine his authority in such matters
I'm having a hard time believing this.
Ben, negate? Are you saying Bizarro World doesn't exist?
I'm having a hard time believing this post has generated 40 comments.
Ogged, Bizarro world doesn't exist—bizarrely, by existing.
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.
Welcome the real world, Ben, where charm matters much more than ability.
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.
I'm just going to start copying your posts and comments in toto.
Tim, I don't think I appreciate that. But are you calling me charming?
Jesus, text has given this shit some thought.
Why must you be such a "glass half-empty" guy, ogged?
Coining "notpostropher" is an act of minor genius, text.
You are calling me charming! That makes you, like, a faggot.
And then, of course, the idea of a second moustache is just silly.
A second moustache above your second "nose". Go for it.
Isn't the anti-apostropher simply "postropher"?
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?
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.
Three hats and a beard! Starring Tom Selleck.
Not Tom Selleck, dammit. But I can't think of a famous beard right now.
Starring a moustachioed Tom Cruise, with Katie Holmes as the beard.
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".
Not Tom Selleck, dammit. But I can't think of a famous beard right now.
JZ Smith's beard is pretty fucking awesome.
Frymybacon.com claims that SuperGreg has two moustaches.
Awesome awesome. Starring Tom Selleck, Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman and...Vin Diesel.
Wow. I think I actual understood that, Ben. Neat.
Well, if you grant him the number line bit, he's golden.
61: You are of course correct, Ben. I wonder why they let me out of the padded room sometimes.
67: I sometimes employ images which, though strictly false, nevertheless help the ignorant to grasp the truth.
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.
Apparently Ben finds you charming, Timbot.
w-lfs-n is a bodhisattva! The Benisattva!
Ben is Early Wittgenstein.
The Benisattva!
Known to his friends as The Benis.
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.
Every day a little sadder
A little madder
Someone get me a ladder
1.1 The world is the totality of hats, not of heads.
1.2 There are some hats which do not exist.
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.
According to this – the obvious, systematic typographical errors notwithstanding – proposition 1.2 states that the world divides into hats.
Every day a pickled adder
A little bladder
Something deep-fried and battered