• Deme@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Electrocuted as in they received injuries from an electric shock.

      • kakes@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m generally a linguistic descriptivist, but in the case of “electrocuted”, I do think the distinction is worth having.

        • Deme@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think there’s a distinction between “electrocuted” and “electrocuted to death”. Same as with “stabbed” vs. “stabbed to death” or any other such verb that can, but may not necessarily result in death.

          • kakes@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            [Edit- I’m blind, the definition I give below does include injury. However, I stand by the fact the word has changed over time, and there is at least some value in following the “old” definition.]

            Per Merriam-Webster:
            1: to kill or severely injure by electric shock
            2: to execute (a criminal) by electricity

            Now, granted, because the word is used often enough to mean “shocked”, there is a “descriptivist” argument to be made that we should accept the new definition (like “literally” meaning “not literally”).

            While I’m generally in favour of this approach, I think the distinction here being literally life-and-death (especially when used in a workplace context) warrants some push-back against this new definition.

            That said, English doesn’t have language police, so you’re more than free to disagree with my take, haha.