3 ms·
Virtually all English speakers are capable of recognizing that "cohabitate" has the prefix "co" on the word "habitate". This doesn't look like the sort of gloss
by greglindahl 7y ago
Virtually all English speakers are capable of recognizing that "cohabitate" has the prefix "co" on the word "habitate". This doesn't look like the sort of glossary that would exhaustively explain the obvious.
- thaumasiotes 7y agoI don't understand your response. Did you understand my question? 1. This glossary glosses e.g. conjungo as "to copulate". 2. This glossary glosses coire as "to cohabit". 3. Coire does not mean "to cohabit"; it means "to copulate". Thus, the question: Why does "have sex" need to be euphemised in the gloss of coire, but not in the gloss of conjungo?
- greglindahl 7y agoI was responding to this part of your comment, > But the glossary strongly implies that there's no meaning to "cohabitate" beyond "have sex" It's common in discussions that people aren't answering your question.
- thaumasiotes 7y agoThe point I'm making in that comment is that, while you would expect "cohabitate" to refer to living arrangements, the glossary suggests -- very strongly -- that, despite ordinary expectations, it does not. I'm not saying "why doesn't the glossary note that 'cohabitation' means living together?". I'm saying "why is this glossary using 'cohabitation' to refer to having sex without any reference to living arrangements?". Your comment doesn't respond to that at all; you appear to assume that 'cohabitation' does refer to living arrangements, and that this is obvious.