Conference thebay::joyoflex

    Yes, in that sense "moot" is its own antonym.  But for a possible
    parallel, note that "Take it to SOAPBOX" means both "Your point is
    debatable" and "Your point is not worth discussing".  
    
    A completely determined question can be like a completely unresolvable
    question or a completely off-the-wall question in being a waste of
    time.
    
    Ray

    I think "moot" means that regardless of whether the point is debatable,
    the debate would not accomplish anything.  That is not an antonym to
    its more denotational meaning of being predetermined.
    
    However, since every word can and will be abused until it obtains
    meanings opposite to its correct meanings, the point is meta-moot.
    
    -- Norman Diamond

    Rathole?...
    
    A Moot, in Anglo Saxon England, was a local administrative assembly.
    
    Nick

    I'm interested to see "mute" creeping in as a possible replacement for
    "moot" in the not-debatable sense, meaning, I suppose, not worth
    talking about.
    

>       <<< Note 1026.4 by RAGMOP::T_PARMENTER "Human. All too human." >>>

>    I'm interested to see "mute" creeping in as a possible replacement for
>    "moot" in the not-debatable sense, meaning, I suppose, not worth
>    talking about.

If you're serious, you are far more charitable than I am.  I don't think for a 
minute that it's intended as a "replacement" for "moot".  Using "mute" where 
"moot" is proper is for me one of those fingernail across the chalkboard 
types of misusages/mispronunciations (see the note on "joolery", "nookular",
etc.).

Clay     

    Re .-1
    "interested" isn't quite the word I'd've chosen.
    
    
    Re .-2
    No, it's no accident. As previous replies said, `moot' means not
    just `debatable' but `worthy _only_ of debate [since the point is
    in reality settled one way or the other anyway]. At least that's
    what `moot' used [s sound] to mean. What it's used [z sound] to
    mean now is debatable.
    
    b

    I'd delete .6 and change the .-1 and .-2 to .-2 and .-3 respectively,
    but someone'd only beat me to the ctrl/z again.
    
    b

    Well, it grates on me too, but it's one of the things that *might* be
    happening in the language.  
    
    I'm a prescriptionist trapped in the body of a descriptionist.  I see
    these things happen, I deplore them, but I love to watch the language
    develop.
    
    Is anybody taking bets on whether "loose" will replace "lose" in the
    next fifty years?  It's the same phenomenon, a word that can be
    unanalytically stretched to mean the same thing as the word it is
    replacing.  
    
    I think "jive" is creeping in to replace "jibe" too.  "Honing
    in" for "homing in" is another.

    As I continue to ponder the question I believe I have an answer to the
    opposite of debatable: fait accompli  -  also there is the phrase
    'overtaken by events' which describes how some disputes are settled
    without either of the parties in the dispute prevailing.

    re: .-1
    
    No, as Bob explains in .6, "moot" describes an argument or conclusion
    whose truth or accuracy can be debated, but for which there is no
    practical use for the outcome of the debate. It is most often used in a
    legal context. For example, one could debate whether or not Richard
    Nixon was guilty of an impeachable offense, and one could come to a
    conclusion, but, because he can no longer _be_ impeached, the argument
    in favor of or against impeachment is moot. It might, nevertheless,
    still be interesting in a purely intellectual sense.
    
    A "fait accompli" is simply something that has happened in the past and
    that presumably cannot be changed. If there were an antonym to "moot"
    it would be closer to "relevant", "pending", or "pertinent", but I
    doubt there is such an antonym.
    
    And I suppose a "mute" argument is one that says nothing.
    
    -Tom

    re: .-1
    
    Yes. I think a moot court is a mock trial in which a hypothetical case
    is argued, as in law school.
    
    -Tom

    I have read the opinion that under the U.S. constitution it is possible
    to impeach a former official even after she/he has resigned, resulting
    in the withdrawal of pension and other benefits from public sources.
    However, no one with the power to act will speak up, and also Digital
    prohibits us from specifying any person in this regard, so for two
    reasons this is a mute point.
    
    -- Norman Diamond

    Re .13: Norman, It might be possible to impeach someone after her/his
    resignation, however I don't think it's possible after a presidential
    pardon of the person in question... So your point is not only doubly
    mute, but also moot.
    			Denis.

    >I don't think it's possible after a presidential pardon
    
    Ah, how could I forget.  Pardon me :-)
    
    Interesting question, in fact.  Clearly a president can pardon
    himself/herself from any criminal record, but can a president also
    pardon himself/herself from impeachment?  If so, then what is the
    meaning of defining an impeachment process in the first place?
    
    Is this question debatable?  :-)

    Re .15: Usually, as in the case we're alluding to, presidents don't
    pardon themselves, but their successors can do it...
    			Denis.

    Earlier in this string, someone postulated that moot, given his/her
    definition, was its own antonym. This is clearly impossible, as there
    is only one word in the English language that forms its own antonym.
    
    
    Tim
    
    (frequent reader, infrequent contributor)
    

    Is that the one you have in mind?

    Bingo! If I had a kewpie doll, I'd send it to you. Good job!
    
    
    
    Tim
    

    Although cleave is the most famous one, I believe there are already
    some old notes in this conference giving examples of other autoantonyms.
    I believe "impregnable" can be considered one.
    
    -- Norman Diamond