changing antonyms

[Lynne Murphy]

Larry Horn wrote:
> Well, there's good/bad/baaad (the one whose comparative is "badder" rather
> than "worse").  Not sure if that's exactly what you're looking for, though.

Well, thanks for the responses so far.  They're not exactly what I'm looking
for, but they're all examples that might be put to good use in other parts of
my discussion, so I'm taking note of them all.  What I'm tending to get are
cases where what were antonyms become synonyms or where words have reversal of
meaning.  There are a lot of these types of examples available in the
literature and on the web, so I probably don't need any more of those.

To clarify what I'm looking for, I just want a canonical antonym pair that
used to have one different member.  Y. Tagashira has a number of examples of
these for Japanese in "Survival of the Positive: History of Japanese Antonyms"
(1992, in _The Joy of Grammar_).  For example, for 'front'-'back' there used
to be 'mae'-'sirie', but through some semantic changes the opposite of 'mae'
became 'usiro' instead (still meaning 'front'-'back').  The problem with the
Japanese examples is that Tagashira doesn't always say what happened to the
displaced word, and I'd like to be able to trace that.

I'm trying to show that one member of a canonical antonym pair can undergo a
semantic change without taking the other one along.  I.e., that the semantic
opposition stays steady even when one of the words in the pair stops holding
up its end of the bargain.  The baaaaad example might have something to add
(after all, it didn't automatically get the antonym gooooood).

Thanks for the efforts,
Lynne