Sure.. and it's not so *terribly* "abnormal" --
This sort of shift in meaning is common in language. And this PARTICULAR sort of shift, and even "reversal" -- of a word related to CAUSING FEAR AND WONDER (which, notice, is not necessarily completely 'negative' to start with!) -- has several examples in English.
It's easier to make sense of when you recognize that the shift took place one reasonable step at a time. Here's generally what has happened:
1) Some have kept their earlier meaning, at least to some extent. Especially, those based on the VERB form -- horrifying, terrifying, frightening, stupefying
(also horrific)
2) But MANY of these are weakened to 'causing WONDER, making a strong impression'
cf. 'terrible noise'. . .
3) From this they may become more general INTENSIVE forms, to describe things that invite a strong reaction/impression but no longer one of "fear":
a) They may take a negative sense (the most common development), meaning 'very bad (in quality or behavior), very poorly done'
- awful, horrendous, horrible, terrible, dreadful, frightful
b) OR in some cases, a positive sense - terrific, tremendous, stupendous (compare 'wonderful' and, in a slightly different sense, 'awesome')
A further development is the creation of adverbs from some of these words -- with the ending -ly, and the intensive sense "very"-- dreadfully frightfully, horribly, terribly, awfully, tremendously. It is not uncommon, in colloquial use, for these to be used with a POSITIVE expression -- e.g., "awfully nice", "terribly funny", "frightfully good"
2007-11-15 04:49:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by bruhaha 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
ummm i think something terrifying can be terrible? I guess something terrific could be terrible depending on which end of it you are on(ie you find $100 or you are the person that lost $100, terrific for the person who finds it but terrible at the same time)
2016-03-19 23:42:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by Amy 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
They are both 'magnifying' words, in that terrific is stronger than good, and terrible stronger than bad but I wouldn't say that made them direct opposites.
2007-11-14 21:41:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bart S 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Actually they are not opposites. In present day usage, their meanings are apparently opposites... but, in fact they are both derived from the same root.... and both mean large and overwhelming. It's the usage that makes them seem opposite.
2007-11-14 21:42:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by thinking.... 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Lol, and here I was thinking I was the only person that ever noticed this. Its really abnormal, but then again, remember that words only have meaning because we give them meaning. So in reality its perfectly acceptable the way it is.
2007-11-14 21:41:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by Wafflecopter 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
They are often used as opposites in conversation or sentences. Yes it is acceptable.
2007-11-14 23:33:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by dicovi 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's never really bothered me...
2007-11-14 21:40:12
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes it ought they were aren't they?
2007-11-15 01:07:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
please clarify. do you mean because similar spelling? and what would you do about if it wasn't acceptable
2007-11-14 21:40:57
·
answer #9
·
answered by dogwhisperer16 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No.....They are similar in meaning..
2007-11-14 23:52:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by coolgal 3
·
0⤊
1⤋