Stiff but flexible

(I didn't see #7 before posting #8 and #9)

So suppose that 'stiff' is defined as 'difficult to bend or stretch' (although my dictionary doesn't have 'or stretch'). And suppose that 'flexible' is defined as 'easy to bend or stretch' (which is only fair). So now 'stiff but flexible' could mean 'difficult to bend but easy to stretch', or 'difficult to stretch but easy to bend' -- but which one ?

I agree that if this phrase came out of a construction manual for the people building the Statue of Liberty, that would be a reason for concern. In a tourist guide, though, why not.

The odd thing is that even I know what it means, although I think it's technically meaningless. (See my #2.)

I'm pretty much with Tony on this. I think they meant "stiff but not too stiff" or alternatively "flexible but not too flexible". The stiffer they are, the less flexible.

"In a tourist guide, why not?" Because you'll make a certain number of readers stop and scratch their heads and say "'stiff but flexible'? Isn't that like saying "tall but short"? (Even though they do know what you mean.)

I may be alone in this, but to me it's not the same as saying "tall but short". Leaving aside the bending vs. stretching thing and assuming that they do indeed mean "stiff but not too stiff": "stiff" implies that its motion is restricted, possibly to the point where it can't alter its shape at all, i.e. where it's rigid. "Flexible" means that it can change its shape, without specifying how much. "Stiff but flexible", then, says that it can alter its shape, but not a lot. That is, it's on the flexible end of "stiff" or on the stiff end of "flexible".

But how is that different from being on the tall end of short or on the short end of tall?

OK, there's a difference in that "tall but short" would strike everyone as ridiculous whereas "stiff but flexible" only strikes a certain small percentage that way. But that may be just because stiff and flexible aren't concepts we deal with all the time the way tall and short are.

It's different in the sense that stiff and flexible are not always opposites, while tall and short are. Flexible is the opposite of stiff, but also the opposite of rigid (in the sense of unchangeable). Since rigid and stiff are not exactly the same, flexible and stiff don't have to be diametrically opposed.

To put it differently, as long as something can change its shape (i.e. as long as it is not entirely rigid), we can say that it is flexible, no matter how stiff it is.

My first thought was that to me rigid and stiff are pretty much the same, different more in register (rigid Latinate, stiff Saxon) than in denotation.

But on second thought,. "rigid but flexible" would seem even odder than "stiff but flexible." So you may be right.

Yes, I think there is a difference in denotation. A spring can be stiff, but cannot be rigid. Do you agree?