5 ms·

But "distrust" doesn't convey the full meaning. They're not talking about merely not trusting Symantec certificates; they're talking about removing existing tr

But "distrust" doesn't convey the full meaning. They're not talking about merely not trusting Symantec certificates; they're talking about removing existing trust in the certificates.

frandroid 9y ago
Why create a new word when we can just add a new adjacent meaning to an existing nearby word...
- kronosEnvy 9y ago
  Language is mutable for this reason. If we didn't add any words but just kept using "nearby words" then we would be DANGER NO GO.
cortesoft 9y ago
Isn't 'removing existing trust' the same as 'distrust'? The word 'distrust' in no way implies that you have NEVER trusted them.
- dllthomas 9y ago
  "Distrust" doesn't imply that you have never trusted them, but it does allow for you never having trusted them, and so communicates less.
  - lomnakkus 9y ago
    Generally, yes if it's without context, but "Plan to Distrust" or "Going To Distrust" (and similar) certainly implies that there previously was some level of trust. I mean if you had no trust to begin with, why would you even say it that way (or say it at all)?
    - dllthomas 9y ago
      As pointed out elsewhere, statements of future distrust admit the possibility that there wasn't yet opportunity to trust or distrust. For instance, if Symantec had never produced certificates and announced that they were going to, and Google announced "when they do, we won't trust them".
dragonwriter 9y ago
> But "distrust" doesn't convey the full meaning. They're not talking about merely not trusting Symantec certificates; they're talking about removing existing trust in the certificates. “distrust” alone only communicates not trusting, true. But the word isn't alone, it is in the phrase “plan to distrust”, which communicates that the not-trusting is a change from the status quo that will occur in the future.
- cperciva 9y ago
  which communicates that the not-trusting is a change Not necessarily. "Plan to distrust" would be consistent with "a company has announced that they're going to start issuing certificates; we won't trust them". You and I know that Symantec is a major CA which is currently trusted by Chrome, but that isn't implied by the headline.
DenisM 9y ago
If it makes the two of you feel any better, the US Supreme Court justices also don't agree on whether to use precise or approachable language. Different strokes. http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/garner-transcripts-1.pdf http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/garner-transcripts-1.pdf
lawnchair_larry 9y ago
untrust?

But "distrust" doesn't convey the full meaning. They're not talking about merely not trusting Symantec certificates; they're talking about removing existing trust in the certificates.

frandroid 9y ago

Why create a new word when we can just add a new adjacent meaning to an existing nearby word...

kronosEnvy 9y ago
Language is mutable for this reason. If we didn't add any words but just kept using "nearby words" then we would be DANGER NO GO.

cortesoft 9y ago

Isn't 'removing existing trust' the same as 'distrust'? The word 'distrust' in no way implies that you have NEVER trusted them.

dllthomas 9y ago
"Distrust" doesn't imply that you have never trusted them, but it does allow for you never having trusted them, and so communicates less.
- lomnakkus 9y ago
  Generally, yes if it's without context, but "Plan to Distrust" or "Going To Distrust" (and similar) certainly implies that there previously was some level of trust. I mean if you had no trust to begin with, why would you even say it that way (or say it at all)?
  - dllthomas 9y ago
    As pointed out elsewhere, statements of future distrust admit the possibility that there wasn't yet opportunity to trust or distrust. For instance, if Symantec had never produced certificates and announced that they were going to, and Google announced "when they do, we won't trust them".

dragonwriter 9y ago

> But "distrust" doesn't convey the full meaning. They're not talking about merely not trusting Symantec certificates; they're talking about removing existing trust in the certificates. “distrust” alone only communicates not trusting, true. But the word isn't alone, it is in the phrase “plan to distrust”, which communicates that the not-trusting is a change from the status quo that will occur in the future.

cperciva 9y ago
which communicates that the not-trusting is a change Not necessarily. "Plan to distrust" would be consistent with "a company has announced that they're going to start issuing certificates; we won't trust them". You and I know that Symantec is a major CA which is currently trusted by Chrome, but that isn't implied by the headline.

DenisM 9y ago

If it makes the two of you feel any better, the US Supreme Court justices also don't agree on whether to use precise or approachable language. Different strokes. http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/garner-transcripts-1.pdf http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/garner-transcripts-1.pdf

lawnchair_larry 9y ago

untrust?