Skip to main content

Is "pretty ugly" an oxymoron?


[credit for to this question goes to Ben Hocking, who posted it as an example that seemed to be disagreed upon in Is "certainly possible" an oxymoron? ]


Some web-references (e.g. this one) give the phrase "pretty ugly" as an example of an oxymoron. The meaning of 'pretty' and 'ugly' within the context of the phrase is not contradictory, but a different meaning of those two words is semantically contradictory, which seems to be enough to qualify under this definition for oxymoron:



A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.



(TFD)


Is the phrase "pretty ugly" an oxymoron?



Answer




I'm late to the party so not sure if anyone will see this, but the existing answers are rather incomplete. "Oxymoron" is not a philosophical or logical term of art;¹ it's a rhetorical one.


Thus saith the OED:



1. Rhetoric. A pair of opposed or markedly contradictory terms placed in conjunction for emphasis.


2. Any contradiction in terms.



The second is metaphorical and irrelevant—the examples given are "the hardworking loafer that is the colonial Dutchman" (1902), "healthful Mexican food" (1989), and "affordable caviar" (1993)—but the first, the word's original sense going back to its first attestation in Servius, is concerned with intent and effect, not logical reasoning.


Of course, "pretty" and "ugly" are usually opposites and, of course, the adverbial sense of "pretty" is a clipping of "prettily" derived from an older sense of "pretty" as intending "cunningly, skillfully, or ably done".


Again, though, it's a rhetorical term: what matters is intent and effect. For a middle school kid, who says it while giggling at its absurdity, to an audience of middle-school kids, who likewise giggle at its absurdity, it's absolutely an oxymoron. For serious writers, skillful and careful about their word choice, like David Foster Wallace in Broom of the System, it's an oxymoron as well. It's an oxymoron as the title of a book on fashion. It's an oxymoron as the title of a biography of a girl with low self-esteem. It's an oxymoron as the title of a book on oxymorons.


But going back to the giggling middle schoolers, the posters at StackExchange are very largely from the group of students who wanted the teacher to know how much smarter we were than the other kids. Stuff like this, where a common belief is turned on its ear, is catnip for us.


So while, yes, "pretty ugly" isn't an oxymoron when said quickly, unthinkingly, and without any intention or effect apart from specifying "not really ugly but not really good looking, either", oxymoron doesn't actually mean paradox² and shouldn't be analyzed as though it does.


¹ That said, Wikipedia being what it is, "oxymoron" is part of its "index of logic articles".


² Obviously, that's for the technical logical sense of paradox that OP and the other posters were applying when stating "pretty ugly" could never be an oxymoron based on its semantic content. Informally, people sometimes treat them as synonyms, although one is a logical concept and the other a rhetorical device.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...