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

[Jarhyn]

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'.

But the point being that establishment is a general term for "that which has become". Esta- to be, -(b)lish to make.

"That which has been made to be" as a noun, and "to make something such that it remains" as verb. These are very important terms to remain unbound into some form of newspeak (let's dub it dumbspeak).

I would far rather properly inflect my conjugations than to be expected to allow a very important general root word to be bound.

Then I also recognize most people are really, really bad at systemic generalization.

I refuse to give the church of England a serviceable general root in any permutation of it's application.

 

[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'.

But the point being that establishment is a general term for "that which has become". Esta- to be, -(b)lish to make.

"That which has been made to be" as a noun, and "to make something such that it remains" as verb. These are very important terms to remain unbound into some form of newspeak (let's dub it dumbspeak).

I would far rather properly inflect my conjugations than to be expected to allow a very important general root word to be bound.

Then I also recognize most people are really, really bad at systemic generalization.

I refuse to give the church of England a serviceable general root in any permutation of it's application.

But that's just because you're a disestablishmentarian.

 

[Jarhyn]

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'.

But the point being that establishment is a general term for "that which has become". Esta- to be, -(b)lish to make.

"That which has been made to be" as a noun, and "to make something such that it remains" as verb. These are very important terms to remain unbound into some form of newspeak (let's dub it dumbspeak).

I would far rather properly inflect my conjugations than to be expected to allow a very important general root word to be bound.

Then I also recognize most people are really, really bad at systemic generalization.

I refuse to give the church of England a serviceable general root in any permutation of it's application.

But that's just because you're a disestablishmentarian.

In two permutations: relating to religion AND binding of general linguistics.

 

[excreationist]

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.

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

Here someone else using the word "holocide" was making it mean the destruction of all living things, not just humans. So holocide can mean the killing of all humans or all life.... which is confusing.

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.

I guess I expected that you don't care. BTW I find the s and f words to be offensive.

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

So "-cide" implies it is about human life? So you should have said "-cide" means "human killing" not just "killing". If "-cide" implies human killing then what about "pesticide", etc, and that other person's definition of "holocide" (meaning killing all life).

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.

Well "holocide" is a bad word if you're after clarity since it has different meanings (all life vs all human life) depending on the person. Also this is a religious text forum and people would be familiar with the meaning of omni- but not so much holo-.

 

[bilby]

I guess I expected that you don't care. BTW I find the s and f words to be offensive.

That's not my fucking problem. What you "find offensive" is entirely on you, and grants you no rights, nor imposes upon me any obligations.

 

[bilby]

So "-cide" implies it is about human life?

No, Holo- does.

You are out of your depth, and I am resigning as your unpaid teacher due to the futility of the work. Goodbye.

 

[bilby]

Also this is a religious text forum and people would be familiar with the meaning of omni- but not so much holo-

Sure. Because the word "holocaust" is practically unheard of in the context of religion

 

[excreationist]

Also this is a religious text forum and people would be familiar with the meaning of omni- but not so much holo-

Sure. Because the word "holocaust" is practically unheard of in the context of religion

Well there is omnipotence, omniscience, etc. What's wrong with just sticking with "omni"? I don't see why "holo" would be superior. Also the Holocaust is more about genocide than killing all humans....

 

[bilby]

Also this is a religious text forum and people would be familiar with the meaning of omni- but not so much holo-

Sure. Because the word "holocaust" is practically unheard of in the context of religion

Well there is omnipotence, omniscience, etc. What's wrong with just sticking with "omni"? I don't see why "holo" would be superior. Also the Holocaust is more about genocide than killing all humans....

You are out of your depth, and I am resigning as your unpaid teacher due to the futility of the work. Goodbye.

 

[excreationist]

You are out of your depth, and I am resigning as your unpaid teacher due to the futility of the work. Goodbye.

I'd assume a teacher would have a certain level of professionalism and swearing while talking to a student even after they said it was offensive isn't that good... but I guess I get what I paid for.

 

[excreationist]

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.

That is what I wrote. Do my statements accurately communicate the point I was trying to make? If so, why do we need a derail on the nuances of the meaning of the word genocide?

Well there already was a derail on the nuances of the invented word "holocide"...
I think your use of "genocide" is like saying a school shooting at a multicultural school whose victims also included a lot of whites is also "genocide". Proper genocide is where specific ethnicities are targeted.

Do you agree that it is hypocritical for mindfucked Christians to be opining about the morality of abortion rights while proclaiming that their deranged, mass-murdering God should be considered the standard bearer for perfect morality?

Maybe it is a case of "do as I say not as I do". Also the Bible seems to have a lot of contradictions so I'd expect problems like that.

 

[bilby]

the invented word

For fucks sake, what other kinds of words do you imagine there could possibly be??

 

[excreationist]

the invented word

For fucks sake, what other kinds of words do you imagine there could possibly be??

Words that are used by other people in the same way (while "holocide" was used as a word for killing everything) that appear in dictionaries, etc.

 

[bilby]

the invented word

For fucks sake, what other kinds of words do you imagine there could possibly be??

Words that are used by other people in the same way (while "holocide" was used as a word for killing everything) that appear in dictionaries, etc.

Do you think those words are not invented?

Where do you think they come from, were they picked from the fucking dictionary trees? Dug out of the thesaurus mines?

 

[excreationist]

Do you think those words are not invented?

Where do you think they come from, were they picked from the fucking dictionary trees? Dug out of the thesaurus mines?

Ok what if I said "neologism" or a newly invented word.

 

[bilby]

Do you think those words are not invented?

Where do you think they come from, were they picked from the fucking dictionary trees? Dug out of the thesaurus mines?

Ok what if I said "neologism" or a newly invented word.

Then you still wouldn't have a point.

Or a clue.

 

[excreationist]

Do you think those words are not invented?

Where do you think they come from, were they picked from the fucking dictionary trees? Dug out of the thesaurus mines?

Ok what if I said "neologism" or a newly invented word.

Then you still wouldn't have a point.

Or a clue.

I was referring to "holocide". Is that not a newly invented word? If it is an old word then why isn't it in any dictionaries or Wikipedia?

 

[Jarhyn]

Do you think those words are not invented?

Where do you think they come from, were they picked from the fucking dictionary trees? Dug out of the thesaurus mines?

Ok what if I said "neologism" or a newly invented word.

Then you still wouldn't have a point.

Or a clue.

I was referring to "holocide". Is that not a newly invented word? If it is an old word then why isn't it in any dictionaries or Wikipedia?

Words with preexisting roots are not "newly invented".

To ask this means one has a deep failure in the understanding of conjugated linguistics.

 

[excreationist]

Words with preexisting roots are not "invented".

To ask this means one has a deep failure in the understanding of conjugated linguistics.

What if I said it involves "coining" a word? The roots that "holocide" is based on aren't very objective..... bilby says it means killing all humans while Michael Login says it means the destruction of living things. There is also it being a similar word to "Holocaust" (which doesn't mean the killing of all humans)

 

[Jarhyn]

Words with preexisting roots are not "invented".

To ask this means one has a deep failure in the understanding of conjugated linguistics.

What if I said it involves "coining" a word? The roots that "holocide" is based on aren't very objective..... bilby says it means killing all humans while Michael Login says it means the destruction of living things. There is also it being a similar word to "Holocaust" (which doesn't mean the killing of all humans)

Holocide has a very clear root. The Holocaust was "the everyone burns". The "Holocene" "the when everyone was new."

In many respects Holo is usually applied to "everything" in terms of human existence specifically. Even so, the Holo root applies to the flood insofar as everything was killed indiscriminately except for a tiny sample, so it wasn't exactly biocide or omnicide, one which would imply the destruction of all life, such that it wouldn't come back, or the destruction of literally everything everywhere ala vacuum state collapse.