Comment

Comment on How do you call a word that is so rudimentary that it can't be defined without being redundant?

I’m not disagreeing that it can sometimes happen as you’ve illustrated above. I am saying that it often does happen that coiners of new words know just what they mean by them. The person who came up with ‘electrocute’ knew exactly what he meant by it - to kill with electricity (notice how the word is a portmanteau of electricity and execute). That the word has started to be used by some as a word to mean something less specific is to me unfortunate, but is a good example of how words change over time. At any rate, it seems obvious that sometimes the definitions of words arrive fully formed at their birth, though not always so

source

Sort:hotnew top

FredericChopin_@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Does electrocute mean that though?

I’ve been electrocuted and I’m here and alive.

source
- Toast@lemmy.film ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Well, it certainly did, and that is the way I use it. I have heard people use it in other ways
  
  source
  - FredericChopin_@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    From the Oxford English Dictionary.
    
    Electrocute (verb)
    
    to injure or kill someone by passing electricity through their body
    
    source
    Toast@lemmy.film ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    I am saying that the word had a particular meaning when it was coined. Many people seem to use it for other things, and the dictionary reflects this. It seems odd to mean that a word that is almost nakedly a combination of electricity and execute is used to not mean killed by electricity, but it is the case
    
    I’m not really sure what your objection is to what I’ve said.
    
    source