Thesaurus.com seems to think the antonyms for “exceed” are “be inferior”, “fail”, or “fall behind”. These may be literally close (as well as “lack”, mentioned above), but semantically this is a very good question.
I think a good argument can be made that there /are/ no semantic antonyms — words often have affective and social meanings on top of their literal ones. The purely literal route is to say the antonym of “exceed” is “not exceed”. Social and affective meanings, however, are not so easily negated. If the social meaning of a word such as “exceed” includes an understanding of the environment of the speaker, the analog word or phrase from any different environment may or may not exist. Likewise, an individual’s understanding of the affectations of a word may differ from another, making negation rather moot.
That is to say, if the definition of the word “exceed” to me includes the literal definition /plus/ expectations that the speaker has a reasonable mastry of English, and that the context the word is used it will be good, and so on — as more non-literal meanings are taken into account, the chances of a pure antonym existing diminish rapidly.
Of course, taking its roots, the syntactic antonyms might be “inceed” or “subceed”. Who says we can’t make up our own words? ;-)
It’s certainly opposite in meaning, but it’s two words. I think if you have a word, its antonym should also be a single word. If English were like German, as jamesw points out, we could just have fallenbershorten and be done with it. But I want a single word, and I don’t think there is one.
It’s only folk lexicography that leads people to identify meanings with single words. I wouldn’t hesitate to call “to fall short of” a lexeme and list it in a dictionary. If a word is defined as the stuff between two spaces or punctuation marks, then it isn’t a word. But it need only be a lexeme to be an antonym, and I think it qualifies as that at least as well as “shortfall” does.
If English were like German, as jamesw points out, we could just have fallenbershorten and be done with it
Shortfallen, surely.
And remember that, in German, most (though not all) of these compound verbs are ‘separable’. That is, they’d be a single word in the infinitive and in the past participle (shortgefallen) but two in most uses (du fällst short, die Ergebnisse fielen short).
Jamesw’s example, BTW, is great. I suppose we’d translate herunterwirtschaften as ‘mismanage’, but the English lacks the German word’s image of not only managing badly, but achieving an undesrirbale result thereby.
If it’s expectations that are being exceeded, then the opposite is to *disappoint* them.
I’m sure back in Shakespeare’s day there were dozens of words which he could use as antonyms – depending on the context. There certainly isn’t one universal antonym suitable for all occasions. But why should there be?
E.g. X exceeded his duty, but Y *ducked* his.
X exceeded the bounds of propriety and good taste, but Y *respected* them.
X exceeded expectations, but Y *disappointed* them.
Thomas, I don’t think there is any modern usage of “to disappoint” with a non-cognitive direct object. You can only disappoint things that feel emotions.
Many, depending on context: tp suffice, to complete, to be inadequate, to be insufficient, to be deficient, to be undistinguished, to be left behind, surpassed, become inferior, to be less than, to maintain, to stand aside
It’s true that “excess”, like “deficiency”, normally has a negative tone, whereas “exceed” is more often positive, but I think the derivations are as I give them. “Defect” doesn’t work. “Deficited” is not idiomatic.
{ 28 comments }
brian 06.08.04 at 9:07 am
lack
several others come to mind, too, but “lack” seems most to the point
JamesW 06.08.04 at 9:23 am
Fall short. OK it’s two words, but did you specify one?
German has a nice word for mismanagemed: heruntergewirtschaftet.
Zak Catem 06.08.04 at 9:36 am
Approach? Depends what you’re trying to say, I guess.
dann 06.08.04 at 9:37 am
Thesaurus.com seems to think the antonyms for “exceed” are “be inferior”, “fail”, or “fall behind”. These may be literally close (as well as “lack”, mentioned above), but semantically this is a very good question.
I think a good argument can be made that there /are/ no semantic antonyms — words often have affective and social meanings on top of their literal ones. The purely literal route is to say the antonym of “exceed” is “not exceed”. Social and affective meanings, however, are not so easily negated. If the social meaning of a word such as “exceed” includes an understanding of the environment of the speaker, the analog word or phrase from any different environment may or may not exist. Likewise, an individual’s understanding of the affectations of a word may differ from another, making negation rather moot.
That is to say, if the definition of the word “exceed” to me includes the literal definition /plus/ expectations that the speaker has a reasonable mastry of English, and that the context the word is used it will be good, and so on — as more non-literal meanings are taken into account, the chances of a pure antonym existing diminish rapidly.
Of course, taking its roots, the syntactic antonyms might be “inceed” or “subceed”. Who says we can’t make up our own words? ;-)
Glen 06.08.04 at 9:42 am
Undershoot.
Andrew Brown 06.08.04 at 10:13 am
John Major
john c. halasz 06.08.04 at 10:40 am
“misunderestimate”
belle 06.08.04 at 11:03 am
What’s wrong with “fall short”?
ian 06.08.04 at 11:24 am
If we talk about exceeding a target, then not exceed isn’t the antonym, since that includes meeting the target as well as falling short.
Kieran Healy 06.08.04 at 11:34 am
What’s wrong with “fall short�
It’s certainly opposite in meaning, but it’s two words. I think if you have a word, its antonym should also be a single word. If English were like German, as jamesw points out, we could just have fallenbershorten and be done with it. But I want a single word, and I don’t think there is one.
Scott Martens 06.08.04 at 11:54 am
It’s only folk lexicography that leads people to identify meanings with single words. I wouldn’t hesitate to call “to fall short of” a lexeme and list it in a dictionary. If a word is defined as the stuff between two spaces or punctuation marks, then it isn’t a word. But it need only be a lexeme to be an antonym, and I think it qualifies as that at least as well as “shortfall” does.
Mrs Tilton 06.08.04 at 11:55 am
If English were like German, as jamesw points out, we could just have fallenbershorten and be done with it
Shortfallen, surely.
And remember that, in German, most (though not all) of these compound verbs are ‘separable’. That is, they’d be a single word in the infinitive and in the past participle (shortgefallen) but two in most uses (du fällst short, die Ergebnisse fielen short).
Jamesw’s example, BTW, is great. I suppose we’d translate herunterwirtschaften as ‘mismanage’, but the English lacks the German word’s image of not only managing badly, but achieving an undesrirbale result thereby.
Thomas Dent 06.08.04 at 12:36 pm
If it’s expectations that are being exceeded, then the opposite is to *disappoint* them.
I’m sure back in Shakespeare’s day there were dozens of words which he could use as antonyms – depending on the context. There certainly isn’t one universal antonym suitable for all occasions. But why should there be?
E.g. X exceeded his duty, but Y *ducked* his.
X exceeded the bounds of propriety and good taste, but Y *respected* them.
X exceeded expectations, but Y *disappointed* them.
cleek 06.08.04 at 12:38 pm
Bush
Scott Martens 06.08.04 at 12:49 pm
Thomas, I don’t think there is any modern usage of “to disappoint” with a non-cognitive direct object. You can only disappoint things that feel emotions.
Nicholas Gruen 06.08.04 at 12:50 pm
Inceed
rea 06.08.04 at 2:09 pm
“inceed”–“The adminsitration’s performance inceeded all expectations–we misoverestimated them.
Jim Henley 06.08.04 at 2:49 pm
Lag.
Alex 06.08.04 at 2:57 pm
Many, depending on context: tp suffice, to complete, to be inadequate, to be insufficient, to be deficient, to be undistinguished, to be left behind, surpassed, become inferior, to be less than, to maintain, to stand aside
Richard Bellamy 06.08.04 at 4:02 pm
trailed
Eric 06.08.04 at 4:55 pm
Underachieve
Theophylact 06.08.04 at 5:01 pm
“Undershoot”.
fdl 06.08.04 at 5:07 pm
underperform
Tom 06.08.04 at 6:22 pm
Word boundaries are kind of arbitrary. For example, “Jamesw” — one word or two?
novalis 06.08.04 at 6:58 pm
Word boundaries are kind of arbitrary. For example, “no table” means the same thing as “notable.”
sidereal 06.08.04 at 7:32 pm
Glen gave the answer at 9:42, and theophylact resupplied at 5:01. What’s with all the jibber-jabber?
Greg 06.09.04 at 2:32 am
Suckceed
Zizka 06.10.04 at 12:52 am
It seems that we are looking for the “??” in these analogies:
excess: deficency =
excessive: deficient =
exceed: ??.
It’s true that “excess”, like “deficiency”, normally has a negative tone, whereas “exceed” is more often positive, but I think the derivations are as I give them. “Defect” doesn’t work. “Deficited” is not idiomatic.
Comments on this entry are closed.