This was in last week's Parade magazine and I like Marilyn Vos Savant's answer.

What is yours?

why not

My answer is:
""

Not is a negative qualifier for an object otherwise assumed to be affirmative.
The opposite of "not" is not putting "not" there.

Obviously Marilyn Vos Savant's answer was more entertaining.

I would say that properly speaking, the opposite of "not in English" is null. Pick any sentence with "not" in it, and to form the opposite you simply remove the "not" and leave nothing in its place.

He is not here.
He is here.

I do not like broccoli.
I do like broccoli. (Or simply "I like broccoli," in which the null replaces two words.)

This is rather common. No in Spanish, nye in Russian, ne... pas in French, bu in Mandarin. Remove the negative from the sentence and leave the place blank, and you've got the positive.

Still this rule is common but not universal. In Japanese:

Ni Hon go ga deki masu. I speak Japanese.
Ni Hon go ga deki masen. I do not speak Japanese.

"So" is a word expressing emphasis or denial, not simple negation:

You are not smart.
I am so!

Other words fulfill the same purpose, such as "too" informally and "indeed" formally. But none of them is truly the opposite of "not."

If I said offhandedly, "I have not been to Poland," you would surely respond "I have been to Poland," with no need for a word of emphasis or denial.

Marilyn has the world's highest verified IQ score, but that does not make her a linguist any more than it would make her a chemist.

What was her answer?

So.

So.

all relative.

But it was from a readers' poll. She does that every week. She writes a weekly column in Parade magazine, which is probably the largest-circulation magazine in the anglophone world because it is distributed with about half of the Sunday newspapers in America.

The people who answer her polls are not a representative demographic. For example, a couple of weeks ago the question was: "What are the ten worst inventions in human history?" I don't remember the whole list, but it included high-heeled shoes, cell phones, neckties, leaf blowers, jet skis, and car radios with subwoofers. Obviously not the results of a poll of young people.

(to undo one, you apply the other)
'start' vs 'stop'
'rotate left' vs 'rotate right'

to undo a 'not' you reapply 'not'. Therefore it's its own opposite.

To undo a 'not' you reapply 'not'. Therefore it's its own opposite.Huh? So the opposite of "Rabbits are not rodents" is "Rabbits are not not rodents?"

Huh? So the opposite of "Rabbits are not rodents" is "Rabbits are not not rodents?"

Actually, it is.
It's sloppy and cumbersome, but it is accurate.

The opposite of "not" can be:

"is".

Jonny is not here.

Jonny is here.

"Yes"

"Not I, Horace!"

"Yes I, Horace!"

"am"

"I am not John Wilkes Boothe"

"I am John Wilkes Boothe".

Et cetera, et cetera.

"is" i agree.

Truly

The opposite of not is not. positive times a negative is negative. Positive time a positive is positive. The negative of a negative is negative. Simple math really.

It is certainly not 'is'.

You cannot replace 'not' with 'is', or add 'is' elsewhere in the above sentence and leave it valid.

'Not' is a curious word to try and find an opposite for because, in fact, its very meaning concerns opposites. It is its own opposite!

My explanation:

For a word (or thing in general) to have an opposite it must have an element of polarity to it. Words with polarity such 'left', 'negative', 'hot', 'north', 'happy' all have opposites for that reason.

'Not' does, in a sense, have polarity - however it does not specify which polarity - it means instead 'swap the polarity from whatever it is'. Therefore it can have no opposite other than itself.

edit - maybe not completely accurate as 'not' can also mean excluding, e.g. 'not north' does not make 'south', but I'm sure the point is clear

However, the opposite of 'is not' is 'is'!

So what's wrong with "truly" ?

that's truly not correct. Or it is not truly correct.

Counterexample? I can't think of one, offhand - but "not" is a pretty complex word, in its usage.

It may not have an opposite, as expressions of quality (rather than value) often do not.

Meanwhile, I'm fond of truly.

I like "so". But it strikes me as mostly a childhood usage. Very informal. I think I use the slightly more acceptable "too".

Why do you assume that there has to be an "opposite" to every word?

Why do you assume that there has to be an "opposite" to every word?

Whoever said that?

That's what the title of the post is asking for.

To me, the title is asking for the opposite word of "not", not of every word in the English language. :confused:

My second to last post was completely conclusive.

Athelwulf: Yes. You are correct. I was "overly" assuming that iceaura was "assuming" that every word must have an opposite. "Not" does not have a direct one-to-one corresponding opposite. Nor, do many other words - perhaps the majority of words do not have a "direct one-to-one corresponding opposite."

I always have a problem negating "used to". As in I used to skate on the lake in the winter, when I was a child.

How do you say the opposite of it? I don't mean "I never skated..." because I occasionally did, just saying that it didn't happen oftentimes? I guess it would be "sometimes I skated..." but that doesn't sound as a pure negative...

A small hobby of mine as a child was ice skating, during the winter. maybe?

"Not" does not have a direct one-to-one corresponding opposite. I doubt any general language (non-technical) word has a direct, one to one corresponding "opposite".

This is informal, no? We may toy and play, even in these august forums?

"So" carries not only a tangential slanginess, but more inappropriate emphasis than "truly" - "You are so busted" has connotations that are not "opposite" of "you are not busted".

"Truly" feels a bit awkward - but use of it in place of "not" seems to produce something very like the opposite meaning and approximate emphasis, etc.

I always have a problem negating "used to". As in I used to skate on the lake in the winter, when I was a child.

"I used to not skate on the lake in the winter when I was a child."

How do you say the opposite of it? I don't mean "I never skated..." because I occasionally did, just saying that it didn't happen oftentimes?

"I didn't use to skate often on the lake in the winter when I was a child." I guess.

Or, "I used to not skate often on the lake in the winter when I was a child."

How are 'so' and 'too' opposites of not?

"I used to not skate" should not be uttered in English. You ought to change it to "I never used to skate" or "I seldom used to skate".

"I used to not skate" should not be uttered in English. You ought to change it to "I never used to skate" or "I seldom used to skate".Methinks the Prince has a hangup about split infinitives. :)

Speaking of hangups, we're getting hung up on the meaning of "opposite." Esperanto has a prefix that actually means "opposite": mal-. It's instructive to see how it works. Varma means "hot." Malvarma tago is a "cold day," i.e. weather that requires bundling up, not just a "day that is not hot," i.e. one that is comfortable because you won't get a sunburn. That is just the "negative," not the "opposite."

Notice that in language, unlike Boolean logic, "negative" and "opposite" are not the same thing. The opposite of "John is rich" is "John is poor." To say the negative, "John is not rich," does not mean that he is poor.

Wouldn't 'not', being a negative, mean it's opposite is a positive?

The opposite of rich is poor. The opposite of hard is soft.
The opposite of existence is the null. Right? Or would it be antimatter?

"I used to not skate" should not be uttered in English.

Why not?

You ought to change it to "I never used to skate" or "I seldom used to skate".

Why?

Split infinitive.

Split infinitive.

I figured that after I read Fraggle's post. I just wanted to hear it from PJ to be sure. Isn't that rule based on the fact that you can't split infinitives in Latin?

Isn't that rule based on the fact that you can't split infinitives in Latin? That's not its only justification. Splitting infinitives often muddles matters, and clarity is a good.

You can break the rule, like any rule, if you know what you are doing - but this example is of a bad breaking. It's likely that "not skating", in the apparent sense of active refusal or prevention, is not what the writer used to do. Notice how adopting either of PJ's alternatives clarifies the problem of negating the statement.

I figured that after I read Fraggle's post. I just wanted to hear it from PJ to be sure. Isn't that rule based on the fact that you can't split infinitives in Latin?Indeed it is. Even the venerable Elements of Style by Strunk & White, which according to its detractors has not been updated since Latin was a living language, admonishes us not to campaign against the split infinitive in English.

In the early days of public schooling in England, Latin was a required course and most of the instructional material was in Latin. This was of course due to the fact that in the previous era virtually all scholarship was performed in Latin. The material was dutifully translated into English, and this worked tolerably well--except when it came to instructing people in the use of English.

Latin grammars were translated verbatim and all of the paradigms were carried forward. Some of the results were so laughable that they are still remembered, such as the "declension" of an English noun:

Nominative: the boy
Genitive: of the boy
Dative: to the boy
Accusative: the boy
Vocative: O boy!

Latin is a hopelessly inflected language with the infinitive form expressed in a suffix: "to love" = amare. Therefore it is physically impossible to "split" a Latin infinitive. Therefore it must be illegal to split infinitives in English.

So we end up with awkward constructions like, "This publication has been revised, better to express our dedication to serving our clients."

You are all encouraged to split infinitives whenever it pleases you. English must break free from the constraints of Latin-based education!