There’s actually a whole class of these words. They’re called heterological words.
Their opposite, autological (or homological) words are words that do describe themselves. “Autological” is an autological word because it describes itself.
Here’s a fun question, though: is “heterological” a heterological word? If you say yes, then that means it does not describe itself and therefore it is not heterological. If you say no, then it does describe itself therefore it is heterological. Bit of a head scratcher.
I used to be really interested in paradoxes, but I decided in my old age that they’re all just bloody annoying and pointless. 99% of paradoxes are just linguistics. All these philosophers who spent their lives debating them are infuriating bastards. “Oh you’ve come up with another unsolvable word puzzle have you? Well that’s language for you - an abstraction developed by the fallible. Congratulations mate, great use of everyone’s time.”
Isn’t there a mistake in your first statement about the word heterological? If I say yes the word heterological is heterological it means that it doesn’t fall into the class of words that it describes and so it is heterological, because as you’ve defined heterological words do not describe themselves
Here’s a fun question, though: is “heterological” a heterological word? If you say yes, then that means it does not describe itself and therefore it is not heterological.
I was actually referring to the other “not” that was at the end, but it only shows why it is paradoxical and how confusing nature of predication is in languages, as in this question appears to be a case of Russell’s paradox of sets
There’s actually a whole class of these words. They’re called heterological words.
Their opposite, autological (or homological) words are words that do describe themselves. “Autological” is an autological word because it describes itself.
Here’s a fun question, though: is “heterological” a heterological word? If you say yes, then that means it does not describe itself and therefore it is not heterological. If you say no, then it does describe itself therefore it is heterological. Bit of a head scratcher.
This is the Grelling-Nelson paradox.
I used to be really interested in paradoxes, but I decided in my old age that they’re all just bloody annoying and pointless. 99% of paradoxes are just linguistics. All these philosophers who spent their lives debating them are infuriating bastards. “Oh you’ve come up with another unsolvable word puzzle have you? Well that’s language for you - an abstraction developed by the fallible. Congratulations mate, great use of everyone’s time.”
the new administration has banned the use of homological words so be careful.
Isn’t there a mistake in your first statement about the word heterological? If I say yes the word heterological is heterological it means that it doesn’t fall into the class of words that it describes and so it is heterological, because as you’ve defined heterological words do not describe themselves
You’re correct! I had an extra not in there. Good catch.
That’s how you know it’s a real head scratcher
I was actually referring to the other “not” that was at the end, but it only shows why it is paradoxical and how confusing nature of predication is in languages, as in this question appears to be a case of Russell’s paradox of sets
Just a good reason not to dabble in paradoxes before you’ve had some coffee. lol
You’re the substitute teacher who wouldn’t let us play Heads Up Seven Up.
My favorite homological word:
Sesquipedalian.
An unnecessarily long word, or a person who uses unnecessarily long words.
Sesquipedalian is a sesquipedalian word.
Oooh, that’s a good one! Its use also makes its user described by itself. Neat!