[quote=cheesehead;199134]From WTNID:

"[B]ob-[/B] [I]prefix[/I] ... [B]1 :[/B] inward < [I]ob[/I]imbricate > [B]2 :[/B] incompletely < [I]ob[/I]rotund > < [I]ob[/I]round > [B]3 :[/B] in reverse order < [I]ob[/I]diplostemonous > [B]4 :[/B] inverse < [I]ob[/I]ovate > < [I]ob[/I]conic > < [I]ob[/I]cordate >"[/quote]
If not actually obfuscating, it was far from being fuscating.

OK I am deliberately being tuse.
PS or should that be cute?

[quote=davieddy;199139]If not actually obfuscating, it was far from being fuscating.[/quote]That may be a misuse of the latter. WTNID's etymology for [I]obfuscate[/I] shows that it originally came from Latin [I]ob-/of-[/I] plus [I]fuscare[/I] (to darken).

So, [I]obfuscate[/I] would have been a comparative of [I]"fuscate"[/I] (i.e., obfuscating = more fuscating) rather than its antonym -- had the latter actually made its way to English, that is, thus necessitating an additional, and typically contradictory, definition of the English "ob-".

Or has this been fuscatory rather than enlightening?

Sub fusc
 

Someone (possibly me) has deleted a post here.

Talking in the third person
 

When the racing driver Jacky Stewart was in his pomp,
I was watching him talking on telly with my father.
Jacky referred to "Jacky Stewart".
I said to my father "I thought he was Jacky Stewart"
He replied: "I'm afraid he is".

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;199561]I was watching him talking on telly with my father.
[/QUOTE]Your father was on the telly with Jacky Stewart? How loverly.

[quote=Uncwilly;199562]Your father was on the telly with Jacky Stewart? How loverly.[/quote]
No.
My father was watching with me in our living room.
Jacky is probably spelt Jackie coz:
a) He's probably male
b) eats haggis

Either way, he was nay match for Jim Clark.

Favourite Krankies joke:
I've got a cold. Beam me up a Scottie.

Calling it a Scottie rather than a Kleenex.

As in the sentence:

"The theory that Global Warming is a threat to humanity
is a Kleenex of lies."

This just wouldn't sound right using the phrase "Scottie of lies",
even though the sentence would still be valid.

Sanction
 

[quote=ewmayer;199042]Again slightly off-topic - another one of those curious English words which can mean two almost-completely-opposite things: [URL="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enjoin"]Enjoin[/URL]

1. to order (someone) to do (something); urge strongly; command
2. to impose or prescribe (a condition, mode of behaviour, etc.)
3. (Law) Law to require (a person) to do or refrain from doing (some act), esp by issuing an injunction

The 2 seemingly-opposite meanings give rise to the well-known "injunction disjunction".[/quote]From the same dictionary:

(My underline at the end) [quote=http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sanction]

[B]Sanction[/B]

. . .

[I]tr.v. ...

[/I][B]1. [/B] To give official authorization or approval to: "The president, we are told, has sanctioned greed at the cost of compassion" (David Rankin).
[B]2. [/B] To encourage or tolerate by indicating approval. See Synonyms at [URL="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/approve"]approve[/URL].
[B]3. [/B] To penalize, especially for violating a moral principle or international law.

. . .

[B][I]Word History: [/I][/B] Occasionally, a word can have contradictory meanings. Such a case is represented by [I]sanction,[/I] which can mean both "to allow, encourage" and "to punish so as to deter." It is a borrowing from the Latin word [I]s[IMG]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gif[/IMG]ncti[IMG]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/omacr.gif[/IMG],[/I] meaning "a law or decree that is sacred or inviolable." In English, the word is first recorded in the mid-1500s in the meaning "law, decree," but not long after, in about 1635, it refers to "the penalty enacted to cause one to obey a law or decree." Thus from the beginning two fundamental notions of law were wrapped up in it: law as something that permits or approves and law that forbids by punishing. From the noun, a verb [I]sanction[/I] was created in the 18th century meaning "to allow by law," but [U]it wasn't until the second half of the 20th century that it began to mean "to punish (for breaking a law)."[/U][/quote]

[url]http://www.thefreedictionary.com/terrific[/url]

1. Very good or fine; splendid: a terrific tennis player.
2. Awesome; astounding: drove at a terrific rate of speed.
3. Causing terror or great fear; terrifying: a terrific wail.
4. Very bad or unpleasant; frightful: a terrific headache.

[quote=davar55;199813]Calling it a Scottie rather than a Kleenex.

As in the sentence:

"The theory that Global Warming is a threat to humanity
is a Kleenex of lies."

This just wouldn't sound right using the phrase "Scottie of lies",
even though the sentence would still be valid.[/quote]
Even I am (almost) too young to remember what the other sex used
before Tampax (unless I really scratch my head).
But what the hell, if it's good enough for Charles and Camilla
it's good enough for me.

PS "Beam me up Kleenex" doesn't sound quite right either.
Mansize or otherwise.

Port o' Prince
 

I thought they spoke French.

Haty, Hasian
Haven't they heard this Steely Dan classic?
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATTU-g_hiNk[/URL]