103
Don't google 'solar flare'
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 May 2024
103 points (100.0% liked)
memes
10685 readers
1664 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You should know that this wasn't a solar flare, but a coronal mass ejection. Look that up instead. No, it's nothing too bad either. The one in 1859 was a big one and some people got electrocuted at telegraph stations, but this ain't like that.
Electrocuted? Or shocked?
Electrocuted as in they received injuries from an electric shock.
I'm generally a linguistic descriptivist, but in the case of "electrocuted", I do think the distinction is worth having.
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.
[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.
I'm a big fan of words being used wrong so often that they change meaning. Glad my education was largely useless.
Tbf, education isn't a thing that ever ends, just gotta learn the new definitions is all.
The definition does include mere injury. Though it does add the qualifier "severely" so now I need to know how that dictionary defines "severe."
Also: The Internet has proven for years that the Language Police exist for all languages. Though they're more like gestapo. Hence the moniker "Grammar Nazi." ๐
Oh shoot, you're totally right! I'll admit I skimmed - thank you for calling me out on that.
I'll still stand by the fact the definition has changed over time, but I can't really argue much of anything after such a big fuckup lmao.
I just find it interesting because I saw a video on this exact definition the other day, being pedantic about electrocution specifically meaning death. It must have been like the definition for "literally" where because of its usage, now includes the definition of "figuratively."
This is why we base scientific words on Latin - dead language doesn't change.
Electrocution = death
Google and the Oxford dictionary disagree.
And Cambridge says it means to die from it.
I wonder if the origin of the word was a portmanteau of electricity and execute.
Execute to death, of course
Could be, but there's other words with that same ending
This is what I get for skipping Latin...
Iirc it's only electrocution if you die
Google and the Oxford dictionary disagree.
You mean the opinion of Google is different from that of the Oxford dictionary?