Toast

@Toast@lemmy.film

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

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How do you call a word that is so rudimentary that it can't be defined without being redundant?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Well, it certainly did, and that is the way I use it. I have heard people use it in other ways

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How do you call a word that is so rudimentary that it can't be defined without being redundant?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  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

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How do you call a word that is so rudimentary that it can't be defined without being redundant?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  You’d have to be pretty strict about what you mean by ‘definition’ in order to claim this. When words are coined, it seems likely that the speaker knows what he means by the word, even if he hasn’t written the definition down somewhere