• 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.