English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

To make something opaque is to 'opaquen'?

How about to make something transparent? Is it 'transparentize'?

Edit 1 This is for a computer code library that manipulates colors. I have verbs to describe the actions like Brighten and Saturate, but I also want to find a nice words to describe making something more or less opaque.

share|improve this question
up vote 14 down vote accepted

There's opacify:

to cause to become opaque.

It sounds a bit awkward/made up, but the meaning is unambiguous.

Make transparent is more difficult. Clarify could work in certain limited contexts, but not in yours, I think. Unfortunately, I think a multi-word construction such as SetTransparency is your only choice here.

share|improve this answer
I think opacify is a good option, I wish I had thought of that one. It's programming: nobody cares if it's a real or conventional word, as long as it is reasonably concise and its meaning is clear. – Peter Olson Mar 3 '11 at 17:31
I hope we can opacify the oinsurgents without offending the opacifists. – chaos Mar 3 '11 at 17:33
@ShreevatsaR: ooffending, actually. :P – Jon Purdy Mar 3 '11 at 20:30
de-opacify? Is it the reverse of opacification? – GEdgar Aug 6 '12 at 21:04
The OED also attest opacate, as in this citation: 1890 H. Frederic Lawton Girl 20 ― Eyes··dimmed and opacated by the effects of dissipation. – tchrist Aug 7 '12 at 0:27

Translucent is between opaque and transparent, so... Translucify?

(As a bonus, it sounds bad-ass, like an album from a band called Translucifer!)

share|improve this answer
Translucence is another property aside from opacity, it has a dispersion component.Or, hold it. Opacity is a combination of transmittance and dispersion. Still not the same things. – Bobbi Bennett Jul 17 '11 at 0:55
Love "translucify" - I need just this word right now and nothing like it exists... If I weren't writing in the voice of an 8-year-old I would use it right now... – user24533 Aug 6 '12 at 17:35

Opaquen is not a word. According to the Random House Dictionary, opaque is an acceptable word as an adjective, a noun (i.e. something that is opaque), or as a verb (i.e. to cause to be opaque).

However, people reading your code (undrestandably) might not realize that you are using opaque as a verb, so it probably is not the best option. I would reccommend SetOpacity.

share|improve this answer
SetOpacity would work if I was actually setting the opacity. This code changes the opacity by an amount (like a percent). I more or less move the opacity towards a certain direction (either totaly transparent or totaly opaque), so I am going with MoreOpaque and LessOpaque despite my dislike to this. – ja72 Mar 3 '11 at 17:22
How about ChangeOpacity? – Peter Olson Mar 3 '11 at 17:24

I don't know of any verbs for your uses of to make something xxx. If there are any, they will likely not be known to your average audience, so it's best to stick with the to make form for the sake of clarity.

share|improve this answer
Thats the problem when you are trying to use common language for programming. I don't want to write a MakeColorMoreOpaque(amount) function, but a Opaquen(amount) function. – ja72 Mar 3 '11 at 16:50
How about IncreaseOpacity? – The English Chicken Mar 3 '11 at 16:51
IncreaseOpacity only works if you are always wanting to increase it. A better name would be SetOpacity. – Peter Olson Mar 3 '11 at 17:03

I've never seen opaquen used; in its place, I've simply seen opaque verbed. For the inverse operation I've seen deopaque.

share|improve this answer
This is probably because the -en suffix is usually used with monosyllabic stems. – Kosmonaut Mar 3 '11 at 16:49
I've seen opaque as a verb also, but it is not recognized as a verb by all dictionaries (not by Merriam Webster, at least) – The English Chicken Mar 3 '11 at 16:50
@Kosmonaut, more specifically, -en is subject to the phonosemantic constraint that it can only be used to derive verbs from monosyllabic adjectives that end in an obstruent. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Nov 7 '13 at 12:48
@JanusBahsJacquet: I'm not really seeing where semantics enters into it; I would characterize it as a morphophonological constraint. Also, note that there is at least one exception (that I can think of) to requirement that it be monosyllabic in awaken. – Kosmonaut Nov 9 '13 at 1:26
I suppose you can call it that—the semantic bit was the word class restraint. Is it morphology or semantics that decide whether ‘black’ is a noun or an adjective, for example? ‘Awaken’ is not an example of the productive suffix -en, but a merger of several Old English verbs (some of which contain the suffix, and some not), and its ultimate base is still a monosyllabic adjective, only with a preverb before it; similarly, ‘unblacken’ also works okay. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Nov 9 '13 at 14:07

It depends on what you are making opaque.

Some words that can be used include: obfuscate, solidify, cloud, darken, muddle, and confuse.

Antonyms include: evanesce, clarify, purify, and lighten.

share|improve this answer

protected by RegDwigнt Aug 6 '12 at 17:42

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.