4 ms·
Yes, this annoyed me slightly while reading the article. But, it's typical in common speech to use "electrocute" to mean "to deliver a significant electrical sh
by bryondowd 10y ago
Yes, this annoyed me slightly while reading the article. But, it's typical in common speech to use "electrocute" to mean "to deliver a significant electrical shock". Since there's no concise way to express that concept, and it is probably a more common occurrence than true electrocution, it makes sense that people have adapted the word this way. I expect this is one of those cases of language evolving where this meaning will eventually make it into dictionaries. At least it's more functional than using "literally" in the place of "figuratively".
- logfromblammo 10y agoI have repeatedly tried to push "electrotetanize" for non-lethal, non-injurious electric shocks that are nonetheless strong enough to produce muscle contraction or temporary paralysis. Sadly, it has not been considered cromulent enough to propagandate. So my continuum of increasing exposure to electricity would be charge < shock < zap < prod < jolt < galvanize < electrify < electrotetanize < electrocauterize < electrocute. Keraunos is the Greek root for lightning, and fulgur/fulmen is the Latin root, in case you might want to coin your own term. Fulgurate is a synonym for electrocauterize.
- lacampbell 10y agoWhy not just "shock"? Like the famous Peter Gabriel song "Shock the Monkey".
- logfromblammo 10y agoBecause you can give someone a shock by dragging your feet across a carpet and touching exposed skin. When you start piling on the syllables, you know there's some serious current flowing.
- lacampbell 10y ago"heavy shock" is much easier than "electrotetanize"