• 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.