Cleave.

Modern kids usage of "Bad"? Bit of a cheat I suppose.

I'd like to contact Victoria Coren as well.

until 30 years ago :-) 'to beg the question' was commonly used in everyday speech to refer to someone who avoided the question (it's from a different root to 'beg/ask') about then, many of my less literate colleagues at work started saying it to mean 'ask' and then it became universal.

Why wrack your brains when you can ask Google? "Auto-Antonyms are the same words that can mean the opposite of themselves under different contexts or having separate definitions; enjoin (to prohibit, issue injunction/ to order, command) fast (moving quickly/ fixed firmly in place) cleave (to split/ to adhere) sanction (punishment, prohibition / permission) stay (remain in a specific place, postpone/ guide direction, movement)" jude

Aren't those defining something that rhymes with Skunk? Or am I thinking of Taramasalata?

Brilliant Macjoyce!! I would add 'Socialist' 1. One who advocates equal opportunities for all and champions the cause of those individuals at the lowest end of the socioecomonic spectrum. 2. Someone who would never associate with individuals on the lowest end of the socioecomonic spectrum (and only ever invite other middle class guardian readers to their boring organic vegetarian sausage bbqs) and ensure their children never mix either by moving to a school catchment area where the astronomical house prices ensure the school is a pleb-free zone. jude

It is far more 'real' where I live - Walworth is one of the last areas of London that hasn't yet been gentrified. But they're knocking down the Aylesbury and Heygate estate and erecting luxury flats around the Elephant so who knows if it can last. I like this from a local blogger "Despite the recent upsurge in celebrating the local community, Walworth is ripe for gentrification. It is only a matter of time before the Bright Young Things from the City enclave around SE17. Old school buildings are already being converted into loft space. Transport may stave off the takeover though; without a tube connection from some shitty Soho lifestyle bar, the upwardly mobile remain ironically stranded. You may be able to read a tube map Tallulah, but I bet you’d be lost trying to get your pretty little airhead around the fine art of planning a South London bus journey across town." So anyway, I'm rambling but obviously socialist can mean either a real socialist or a Claphamite which means the terms are diametrically opposed. jude

Yes, I think the 'Cla-ahmites' are most definitely New Labour, but whoever thought they were socialists? Given their attitude to the FOI Act and their surprise worthy of the fattest of Tory Cats at people's impressions of their troughing, it's like watching the Nomenklatura of the Cold War Soviets. 'Of course state pay for Dacha, what you think?'

"...whoever thought they were socialists?' I think they do themselves or at any rate they claim to hold egalitarian principles. My local MP is a classic example of this ... children went to a heavily oversubscibed primary in affluent Dulwich then one went to the Oratory and the other to St. Olave's Grammar which both have Oxbridge entry rates of over 20%. But these opportunities (those exclusive state schools) are available to 'anyone' in Southwark she cried knowing full well the vast majority of state primary schools cannot prepare children for the entry exams and the parents on my estate have no funds for extra tuition. I am certainly not a socialist of any description and I have no objection to playing the school system (I would try my hardest to get the same for my children) ... it's the hypocrisy I can't stand. Of course they're not 'socialists', their concern for the poor is purely cosmetic. When Tony Blair gave his speech on election night in 1997, it was on the stairwell of my block of flats. Legend has it they had to disinfect it to get rid of the stench of urine. That symbolises the new political classes and their middle class supporters. The forgotten people they claim to care about can't be approached except for a publicity stunt and only then with prior disinfection. jude

Yes, I believe you: they are not socialists, like I said.

Hence the 'New' Labour appellation. It allows for multiple interpretations. Clever innit? :)

"I think they do themselves or at any rate they claim to hold egalitarian principles. My local MP is a classic example of this ... children went to a heavily oversubscibed primary in affluent Dulwich then one went to the Oratory and the other to St. Olave's Grammar which both have Oxbridge entry rates of over 20%." Well, 'socialist' is one of those labels has almost as many meanings as there are people who claim it or have it chucked at them as an insult. It's label I generally avoid these days, in favour of suggesting what I would or wouldn't like to happen in a particular situation. That said, I don't think attempting to get the best possible deal for your kids within the state system necessarily means you're not a socialist. I personally did refuse to take a grammar school entrance exam at the age of 10 for political reasons. I haven't changed my moral position but I think there's a big difficulty in trying to use the education system to create a more egalitarian society. In the countries where comprehensive education systems work really well - such as some of the scandinavian countries (and some parts of Britain, parts where most journalists and commentators don't live and are not interested in) - they're as much a reflection of the overall social and economic situation as a means of creating it. The practical problems of comprehensive education in London - where there's such massive wealth and class disparities amongst people living in close proximity to each other - are fairly obvious.

Whilst I'd encourage free thinking in my children if they turned round and ' refuse to take a grammar school entrance exam at the age of 10 for political reasons' I would tell them that the alternative would be independent school that would leave me so broke they can forget Christmas presents for the next 11 years. If that didn't work I'd go down the bribery route (£5k/ a mini-motorbike/ riding lessons/ whatever their weakness, if they get in). Of course since I'd be paying for prep-school if I don't get them in to a leading state primary, the chances of them having this ideology would be minimal. I wanted to take a scholarship exam but wasn't allowed to because of my father's political leanings. I think he was wrong putting his principles above his children. I had no say in the matter. I don't agree that comprehensives work well, except for average and maybe below average children. Even top comprehensives (oratory aside) fail bright children. I went to a leading comprehensive in Surrey where pupils came from all backgrounds including a few council estates nearby but mainly middle class and no serious deprivation. All my siblings went there and came out with good A levels and went to good Universities. The youngest left a couple of years ago to study theoretical physics at Imperial. The problems with comps: i) I was top of my class in many subjects and top in my year in about half. This was problematic since it gave me a false idea of my intelligence in the world. I thought I was really very clever whereas I am actually just moderately bright. It was only when I got to university that I realised how middle of the road I really am. If I had gone to a grammar where 7 bright girls compete for every place, only the top 1-2% of students from a wide catchment area would have been my contemporaries and I would have been somewhere in the middle in terms of ability which would have been far more healthy and realistic for me. ii) There is a cumulative value to having lots of bright people in one place. My friends were largely middle class and capable but all they talked about were dumb tv shows and inane crap. There weren't enough bright and interested students to enable poetry clubs or philosophy clubs or chess clubs and though I read widely on my own, it was very isolating - the lack of stimulation made the whole education experience tedious until I found the local pub when I reached the 6th form. iii) The Oxbridge factor. I admit this can be changed but bright students who would certainly have gone to either Oxford or Cambridge had they attended independent schools or grammars too often fail to even secure an interview not because of snobbery by the colleges but because comprehensives lack the staff and expertise to coach them to get in (the oratory is the only comp that sends significant numbers every year). Okay, we end up in a top 10 university anyway but its the principle of being failed. jude

Pussy? A cat or something else! Tit? A bird or....

Well, they're homonymns rather than auto-antonyms because whilst pussy can mean cat or vagina, those two things are not opposites of one another, at least I don't think they are. There are hundreds of homophones and homonymns in the English language but very few auto-antonyms! jude

Well, Jude, this obviously depends partly on what you want an education system to do. I don't regard (i) - individuals being able to accurately gauge their intelligence in comparison to the rest of the population - as a key priority. I think (ii) - bright kids mixing primarily with other bright kids - has its pros and cons. It probably is the best way for the academically brightest kids to achieve the highest level of academic attainment. Academically bright kids doing well academically is important - I'm generally sympathetic to internal streaming in comprehensive schools - but, for me, it has to be balanced against everyone doing as well as they can but also against the value of bright kids understanding everyone else well enough to be able to apply their intelligence to real life situations. And also understanding the practical limitations of academic learning. In terms of (iii), once again I don't see the intake at Oxbridge being a major issue in terms of the value of the education system as a whole. But having never applied to Oxbridge or attended university (I've done some evening courses) I'm very poorly placed to comment on this issue.

Internal streaming in comps is something of a joke since I was in the top Maths set and that is my weakest subject. I still regard myself as a poor mathmetician. If I had been in the same year as my brother who is a strong mathmetician, how can the top set have possibly catered for us both? It would have failed to stimulate him and failed to give me the additional support I needed. That's because dividing the whole spectrum of ability into 6 sets means each set contains too wide a range to be able to provide tailored teaching. I do agree that I benefited by 'understanding everyone else well enough to be able to apply their intelligence to real life situations'. But I feel that is a teeny tiny pro against a tsunami of massive cons. Understanding the practical limitations of academic learning comes to everyone once they leave academia and start work regardless of where and how they studied. The problem with the old grammar school system was that the secondary moderns were truly awful. We need a system like the Netherlands where the non-grammar schools are heavily invested in and children who improve can move across rather than the one-time chance that was the 11+. Secondly, grammar schools could not be reached by somebody who excelled in one subject (say Maths) but failed in another (perhaps because they're dyslexic). That's why we need academies for particular subjects, grammars for all-rounders and good standard secondary schools for remaining students. I understand where champions of comprehensive education are coming from and I would probably send my child to a comp. if they were academically average. But seeing my little brother 'come alive' and thrive at Imperial because for the first time in his life he is being challenged and is with like minded people has made me realise how much bright people need that to be truly happy. He now has a lovely girlfiriend and a great social life but at school, though he had friends, he couldn't be bothered with them a lot of the time and spent his entire summer holidays in front of his computer in a dressing gown! jude