Split What is Genocide, holocide, neologisms for other -cides (split from “presuppositionalism question”)

[excreationist]

How many people has the god of the Bible murdered, or had murdered? For fucks sake, Biblegod killed every single living person on the planet (except for a small handful on a boat). Why should anyone take lessons in morality from a god that commits genocide on a planetary scale?

I wouldn't call that genocide because I think genocide involves targeting specific ethnicities or nations. On the other hand there's Deuteronomy 20:16-17:

"But what about the cities the Lord your God is giving you as your own? Kill everything that breathes in those cities. Completely destroy them. Wipe out the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. That’s what the Lord your God commanded you to do."

 

[bilby]

I wouldn't call that genocide because I think genocide involves targeting specific ethnicities or nations.

That's a weird defence. "It's not genocide because I killed absolutely everyone (except this one family)".

Your honour, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am asking you to acquit my client of the charge of Bank Robbery, as it is clear from the evidence that he is not a Bank Robber, but in fact robbed Building Societies and Post Offices as well.

Genocide is a superset of mass-murder, which is a superset of murder. Similarly holocide is a superset of genocide.

A person who commits genocide is a murderer; A person who commits holocide is also guilty of genocide. Sure, he targeted specific ethnicities and nations - in fact there wasn't a single one he didn't target.

 

[excreationist]

I wouldn't call that genocide because I think genocide involves targeting specific ethnicities or nations.

That's a weird defence. "It's not genocide because I killed absolutely everyone (except this one family)".

Your honour, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am asking you to acquit my client of the charge of Bank Robbery, as it is clear from the evidence that he is not a Bank Robber, but in fact robbed Building Societies and Post Offices as well.

Genocide is a superset of mass-murder, which is a superset of murder. Similarly holocide is a superset of genocide.

A person who commits genocide is a murderer; A person who commits holocide is also guilty of genocide. Sure, he targeted specific ethnicities and nations - in fact there wasn't a single one he didn't target.

From Google definition for genocide:

"the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group."

A person who commits genocide is a murderer

I think the Israelites who carried out Deuteronomy 20:16-17 wouldn't be considered murderers amongst the Israelites but it would be considered genocide.

holocide is a superset of genocide

"Holocide" doesn't seem to be in Wikipedia, dictionary.com or merriam-webster.com so it isn't a very recognised word.

 

[steve_bank]

United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect

Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect

www.un.org

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The Russian war on Ukraine is genocide, the intentional elimination of an entire state, pollination, and culture.

 

[steve_bank]

In te OT there is a mandate for the Hebrews to eliminate an enemy, IOW genocide.

Genocide in biblical times and forced cultural assimilation was the norm. Anyone who thins the biblical Hebrews were inoffensive peaceful gnomes is living in a Christian fantasy.

In the bible myths god was on the Hebrew side against enemies. Israel fell to stronger cultures and later was occupied by Rome.

 

[bilby]

I wouldn't call that genocide because I think genocide involves targeting specific ethnicities or nations.

That's a weird defence. "It's not genocide because I killed absolutely everyone (except this one family)".

Your honour, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am asking you to acquit my client of the charge of Bank Robbery, as it is clear from the evidence that he is not a Bank Robber, but in fact robbed Building Societies and Post Offices as well.

Genocide is a superset of mass-murder, which is a superset of murder. Similarly holocide is a superset of genocide.

A person who commits genocide is a murderer; A person who commits holocide is also guilty of genocide. Sure, he targeted specific ethnicities and nations - in fact there wasn't a single one he didn't target.

From Google definition for genocide:

"the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group."

A person who commits genocide is a murderer

I think the Israelites who carried out Deuteronomy 20:16-17 wouldn't be considered murderers amongst the Israelites but it would be considered genocide.

holocide is a superset of genocide

"Holocide" doesn't seem to be in Wikipedia, dictionary.com or merriam-webster.com so it isn't a very recognised word.

It has a very obvious meaning though, from the roots holo- (whole, entire, complete) and -cide (killing).

Holocide means killing everyone.

That it's rarely used is a good thing.

 

[excreationist]

It has a very obvious meaning though, from the roots holo- (whole, entire, complete) and -cide (killing).

Holocide means killing everyone.

That it's rarely used is a good thing.

The word is only found 633 times on Google (and not in dictionaries, etc).... a more widely used word is "cleansing"....
e.g.

What Were the Reasons for the Flood?

Why would God send a Flood to destroy the entire world of humankind and beasts? Does the Bible tell us the exact circumstances that led God to perform such a

www.blueletterbible.org

"...The Flood was also an effective way of cleansing the earth of its sin..."

There is also the genocide-related term "ethnic-cleansing".

 

[bilby]

It has a very obvious meaning though, from the roots holo- (whole, entire, complete) and -cide (killing).

Holocide means killing everyone.

That it's rarely used is a good thing.

The word is only found 633 times on Google (and not in dictionaries, etc).... a more widely used word is "cleansing"....
e.g.

What Were the Reasons for the Flood?

Why would God send a Flood to destroy the entire world of humankind and beasts? Does the Bible tell us the exact circumstances that led God to perform such a

www.blueletterbible.org

"...The Flood was also an effective way of cleansing the earth of its sin..."

There is also the genocide-related term "ethnic-cleansing".

So what?

Holocide means what it says. "Cleansing" is a vile euphemism, and I won't use the word at all in the context of killing or displacing people.

You can use any words you like; I shall continue to use the words that I believe best express my meaning - whether you like it or not.

 

[excreationist]

So what?

Holocide means what it says.

Not according to the dictionaries/Wikipedia. When I Google it it mainly gives results about a band. It isn't a recognised word. It's almost as bad as inventing a word.
Here is someone attempting to use it as a word:

Destruction of only living things

I'm looking for a word that conveys the idea of the utter and sudden end of all life in a large region (e.g. a city). I'm thinking of an event in which all living things in that region suddenly d...

english.stackexchange.com

Their answer was given a rating of -1 (though their answer was accepted). Their reason for using holo- is because it is similar to Holocaust.

"Cleansing" is a vile euphemism, and I won't use the word at all in the context of killing or displacing people.

Of course it's a vile euphemism. That's why I also used quotation marks like you. I think using it in the context of Christianity paints them in a bad light which I think is a good thing.

You can use any words you like; I shall continue to use the words that I believe best express my meaning - whether you like it or not.

Well I was trying to invent another word for the concept - omnicide.... 276,000 results on Google and appears in dictionaries AND Wikipedia.... though it is about killing humans rather than life in general.

 

[bilby]

It's almost as bad as inventing a word.

What the fuck is bad about inventing a word??

Anyway, 'holocide' is a perfectly cromulent word.

 

[excreationist]

It's almost as bad as inventing a word.

What the fuck is bad about inventing a word??

Anyway, 'holocide' is a perfectly cromulent word.

Omnicide and biocide are actual words. It is unnecessary to invent a word. One reason it is bad is if someone wants to look up the definition in a dictionary/Wikipedia they won't find it though there might be other better reasons.

 

[bilby]

It's almost as bad as inventing a word.

What the fuck is bad about inventing a word??

Anyway, 'holocide' is a perfectly cromulent word.

Omnicide and biocide are actual words. It is unnecessary to invent a word. One reason it is bad is if someone wants to look up the definition in a dictionary/Wikipedia they won't find it though there might be other better reasons.

Omnicide and biocide carry different nuance of meaning. And clearly it was necessary to invent a word: 1) Because one has been invented; and 2) Because there's no other word that has this meaning.

There are plenty of words you can't find in a dictionary, and dictionaries are always out of date and inaccurate. If you want to know what a word means, look at how it is used, look at how it relates to other words, or (best of all) ask the people who use it.

Dictionaries are for scrabble players and pedants. Real language is a living thing and cannot be pinned down in a dictionary.

There are no bad results from coining a neologism that aren't massively outweighed by the good. It's part of the evolution of language, and it embiggens the smallest man.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's almost as bad as inventing a word.

What the fuck is bad about inventing a word??

Anyway, 'holocide' is a perfectly cromulent word.

Omnicide and biocide are actual words. It is unnecessary to invent a word. One reason it is bad is if someone wants to look up the definition in a dictionary/Wikipedia they won't find it though there might be other better reasons.

Omnicide and biocide carry different nuance of meaning. And clearly it was necessary to invent a word: 1) Because one has been invented; and 2) Because there's no other word that has this meaning.

There are plenty of words you can't find in a dictionary, and dictionaries are always out of date and inaccurate. If you want to know what a word means, look at how it is used, look at how it relates to other words, or (best of all) ask the people who use it.

Dictionaries are for scrabble players and pedants. Real language is a living thing and cannot be pinned down in a dictionary.

There are no bad results from coining a neologism that aren't massively outweighed by the good. It's part of the evolution of language, and it embiggens the smallest man.

This is also, I might add, an exercise in general constructive linguistics.

There are nearly infinite combinations of roots with conjugate modifiers, and the dictionary is only not full of these because often it only addresses the root, while suggesting commonly used conjugation.

Someone suggesting holocide is not a word is falling flat on their face insofar as I wonder whether they would consider antidisestablishmentarianism a word. Clearly it is mentioned a few places, but purely as a constructed word around the root verb "esta", or 'to be'.

But the word can still be used. For example everyone who hates anarchists is a tacit participant in antidisestablishmentarianism.

I can get it's meaning from the conjugation of the root.

All such applications in English are intrinsically valid, as English is a language with conjugation and roots, allowing formulative extensions of ideas.

 

[bilby]

everyone who hates anarchists is a tacit participant in antidisestablishmentarianism

Well, not quite; establishmentarians support the established church, that is, the existence of a church that is a part of the government (such as the Church of England, whose head is the reigning monarch, and whose bishops sit in the legislature, in this case, the House of Lords).

Disestablishmentarianism is support for the removal of this linkage between chuch and state; The establishment clause of the US First Amendment is an excellent example of disestablishmentarian legislation.

So an antidisestablishmentarianist opposes the separation of church and state. While such an individual might consider such separation to be anarchistic, and anarchism to be bad, that's not necessarily implied.

This is typical of English, which due to its mongrel history often has a number of different potential words with identical meanings, and which leverages that redundancy to introduce nuance - "The establishment" can refer to any system that is currently in place - as you observe, from 'esta', to be - but it's derivation 'establishmentarian' has been used specifically to refer to the system of legal synergy between church and state, to the point where (at least in the UK and most commonweath nations), it would normally be taken to refer specifically to that particular established situation.

Indeed, it is such nuances of meaning that leads me to reject bio- or omni- as roots when selecting the word holocide to carry the specific meaning of 'killing all people'.

Both of the other roots would, in my opinion, suggest killing non-human life as well, which isn't what happened in the flood story (another fictional example would be Drax's plot in the movie Moonraker*, where he plans holocide using a gas that specifically kills only humans, so as to preserve the biosphere of the Earth for his select group of 'superior specimens. It's basically the same as the Noah story, but with the moral inverted to portray the guy killing everyone as a villain, rather than a hero).







*The plot of the Ian Fleming novel of the same name is radically different from that of the movie, and in the book the villainous Drax is attempting to nuke London in revenge for their victory over Naziism.

 

[excreationist]

Indeed, it is such nuances of meaning that leads me to reject bio- or omni- as roots when selecting the word holocide to carry the specific meaning of 'killing all people'.

Omnicide can mean "The total extinction of the human species as a result of human action."

omnicide - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

Both of the other roots would, in my opinion, suggest killing non-human life as well,

No look at the definition of omnicide I quoted. But you said "holo- (whole, entire, complete) and -cide (killing)".

That's it - "entire" and "killing".... i.e. killing everything. You yourself said nothing about the killing only being restricted to humans in your breakdown of the word.... (note that "-cide" doesn't necessarily mean human life - e.g. "biocide")

Also in the Flood story there was the killing of all life which again implied that your word included non-human life. But if you simply said "killing all life" or "killing all humans" it would be obvious what you mean.

 

[bilby]

Indeed, it is such nuances of meaning that leads me to reject bio- or omni- as roots when selecting the word holocide to carry the specific meaning of 'killing all people'.

Omnicide can mean "The total extinction of the human species as a result of human action."

omnicide - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

Both of the other roots would, in my opinion, suggest killing non-human life as well,

No look at the definition of omnicide I quoted. But you said "holo- (whole, entire, complete) and -cide (killing)".

That's it - "entire" and "killing".... i.e. killing everything. You yourself said nothing about the killing only being restricted to humans in your breakdown of the word.... (note that "-cide" doesn't necessarily mean human life - e.g. "biocide")

Also in the Flood story there was the killing of all life which again implied that your word included non-human life. But if you simply said "killing all life" or "killing all humans" it would be obvious what you mean.

Your failure to recognise nuances doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Writing is an art, and word selection is a part of that art.

Your suggested approach is akin to suggesting that portraiture is unnecessary, because we could just hang people's drivers license or passport photos in the National Portrait Gallery if people want to know what they look like.

Language doesn't just convey the bald meanings of the words used.

 

[Jarhyn]

it would normally be taken to refer specifically to that particular established situation

So, a "free word" has been corrupted into a bound term.

I am a linguistic disestablishmentarian as I would tear down the linguistic establishment of the binding of this root to that idea.

That which you reference would, to such an intent, instead be "antireligio-disestablishmentarianism". I'm not sure the hyphen is entirely necessary.

Or perhaps religioantidisestablishmentarianism, or some permutation, perhaps specifically also targeting civics.

 

[excreationist]

Your failure to recognise nuances doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Writing is an art, and word selection is a part of that art.

Your suggested approach is akin to suggesting that portraiture is unnecessary, because we could just hang people's drivers license or passport photos in the National Portrait Gallery if people want to know what they look like.

You said your term "holocide" combined "whole, entire, complete" and "killing". Where did the nuance of "human life" come into it? I think you should go back to the drawing board and include something that means human killing in there.

Language doesn't just convey the bald meanings of the words used.

Then does that mean "omnicide" can be used despite using "omni"?

 

[bilby]

So, a "free word" has been corrupted into a bound term.

I am not sure that 'corrupted' is the mot juste here; Binding of general words to specific detailed instances of the general meaning is a great strength of the English language. It allows it to rapidly gain technical depth in a world of rapidly advancing technologies which demand such depth.

In the late C19th and early C20th, French and German did much the same, but today they typically adopt English neologisms, as most technical and scientific documentation is written in English. Notable English examples of adoption of such technical terms occur in aviation, where the French were the first to need words like 'fuselage' and 'aileron'.

 

[bilby]

Your failure to recognise nuances doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Writing is an art, and word selection is a part of that art.

Your suggested approach is akin to suggesting that portraiture is unnecessary, because we could just hang people's drivers license or passport photos in the National Portrait Gallery if people want to know what they look like.

You said your term "holocide" combined "whole, entire, complete" and "killing". Where did the nuance of "human life" come into it?

In the way the word is used by other users of the word. That's how all words get their meanings.

I think you should go back to the drawing board and include something that means human killing in there.

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that I give shit the first about your badly undereducated advice.

My choice of root does provide that implication, whether or not you have the experience and knowledge to recognise that fact.

Language doesn't just convey the bald meanings of the words used.

Then does that mean "omnicide" can be used despite using "omni"?

Can? Yes. Should? No. Not if you want to communicate with clarity, poetry, grace, artistry, efficiency, nuance and skill.