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.
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.” 😌
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.”
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.” 😌
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.