Is "disclude" a word?
Alex Chernavsky
"...a secular affirmation wouldn't disclude the majority, as the
monotheistic affirmation discludes the minority."
In response, a would-be language cop became indignant and claimed that
"disclude" is not a word. Indeed, it's not listed in the few dictionaries I
have here on hand. I don't have easy access to the OED -- would somebody do
me a favor and check to see if "disclude" is listed? If so, would you
please quote all or part of the definition?
Thanks.
--
Alex Chernavsky
Sara Moffat Lorimer
The entire definition from the OED 2 on CD-ROM:
disclude, v. Obs.
[In form a. L. discludere {with accents all over the place -Sara} to
shut up apart or separately; but in sense conformed to disclose.]
trans. To disclose.
~1420 Pallad. on Husb. vi. 84 Then his magnitude By brekyng of this
potte me may disclude."
Harvey V
<al...@astrocyte-design.com> said:
The OED only has an obsolete sense, with a quote from the 15th century,
of "to disclose", which obviously isn't the sense the poster was using.
"Disclose" seems, at least to me, to be a clear enough word but a bit
unnecessary -- if there's some shading of difference between "exclude"
and "disclude" it's one which escapes me.
My response to the indignant responder would be the traditional on of
"there is such a word now: this other fellow's just used it". To
maintain that there is "no such word" seems to me to reject the concept
(rather than the propriety) of forming neologisms, which is patently
silly.
Harvey
Harvey V
(Harvey V) said:
<snip>
> "Disclose" seems, at least to me,
Darn. I meant, of course, "disclude".
Richard R. Hershberger
<address....@web.site www.mantra.com/jyotish (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote
in message news:English-178...@news.mantra.com...
> In article <s2uQ6.83899$f85.12...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>,
> "Alex Chernavsky" <al...@astrocyte-design.com> posted:
> a common word. English is young and experimental, and the day
> is far when any combination of letters will mean something.
>
> Jai Maharaj
> http://www.mantra.com/jai
> Om Shanti
On the other hand, if one's purpose is to communicate with one's readers,
this is more likely to be achieved by using words they are likely to know.
And even inasmuch as this is an English word (overlooking that it is at best
obslete and quite possibly a nonce word) it means something else. I suspect
that the writer was thinking of the etymological sense. But even this isn't
really right, as "discludere" has a sense of setting apart, while the
context suggests that the writer meant more a sense of shutting out. For
this we have the Latin "excludere" which was borrowed into English as the
perfectly familiar "exclude".
At best, the writer of this text is showing off by using an unnecessarily
exotic word. More likely, the writer is being proactively clueless by using
an unnecessarily exotic word in favor of a common word, and using it wrong.
Richard R. Hershberger
N.Mitchum
-----
> On another newsgroup, a poster (not me) wrote the following:
>
> "...a secular affirmation wouldn't disclude the majority, as the
> monotheistic affirmation discludes the minority."
>
> "disclude" is not a word. Indeed, it's not listed in the few dictionaries I
> have here on hand. I don't have easy access to the OED -- would somebody do
> me a favor and check to see if "disclude" is listed? If so, would you
> please quote all or part of the definition?
It's in the OED, but the poster has misused it. Evidently he
meant "exclude" but preferred the arcane flavor of "disclude" (and
of what he imagined it to mean).
OED1 says it's an obsolete verb meaning "to disclose," and nothing
else.
----NM
Mark Brader
> It's in the OED, but the poster has misused it. Evidently he
> meant "exclude" but preferred the arcane flavor of "disclude" (and
> of what he imagined it to mean).
Who knows, it might catch on.
This reminds me of "prepend", which is a common informal usage among
computer people. The Jargon File (4.3.0) has this about it:
# :prepend: /pree`pend'/ vt. [by analogy with `append'] To prefix.
# As with `append' (but not `prefix' or `suffix' as a verb),
# the direct object is always the thing being added and not
# the original word (or character string, or whatever). "If you
# prepend a semicolon to the line, the translation routine will
# pass it through unaltered."
In at least one dictionary where I have looked it up, probably the OED,
"prepend" is defined only as an archaic word for "to think over".
--
Mark Brader | Yet again, I begged him to explain himself in plain
Toronto | English. This request always surprises him, as he
m...@vex.net | is always under the extraordinary impression that
| he has done so. -- Lynn & Jay, "Yes Minister"
My text in this article is in the public domain, as is the Jargon File.
AWILLIS957
suspect, from what the writer intended, which, I agree, is "exclude".
I have mixed views about this. On the one hand, I believe that people are
entitled to make up new words if they feel like it, and should they come into
vogue, fair enough. Using Latin and Greek structures are probably the best way
of making up new words, as there is a fair chance they will be internationally
understood, even when they have not been previously heard of by the reader.
I used the word "centrifuge" only an hour ago, to describe the inner roots of
my being, and I know full well that this is not an accepted usage. But I also
know it will be perfectly well understood. I couldn`t think of a better word
for what I wanted to say, which, I believe, is the best sort of excuse for such
self-indulgence.
On the other hand, I agree that to make up new words when there are perfectly
serviceable ones available for the purpose in question seems rather
unnecessary. Too many words contrived from the Latin or Greek can make the
English language sound ugly, to judge by books about specific technical fields,
which are necessarily riddled with them.
Albert.
Truly Donovan
whhvs@*removethis*operamail.com (Harvey V) wrote:
>My response to the indignant responder would be the traditional on of
>"there is such a word now: this other fellow's just used it". To
>maintain that there is "no such word" seems to me to reject the concept
>(rather than the propriety) of forming neologisms, which is patently
>silly.
I think the term "nonce word" works better here than
"neologism" -- that's what I use on the "no such word"
people (unless, of course, the word they claim there is no
such of is "irregardless"; I have a special answer for that
one).
--
Truly Donovan
http://www.trulydonovan.com
John O'Flaherty
> N. Mitchum:
> > It's in the OED, but the poster has misused it. Evidently he
> > meant "exclude" but preferred the arcane flavor of "disclude" (and
> > of what he imagined it to mean).
>
> Who knows, it might catch on.
>
> This reminds me of "prepend", which is a common informal usage among
> computer people. The Jargon File (4.3.0) has this about it:
>
> # :prepend: /pree`pend'/ vt. [by analogy with `append'] To prefix.
> # As with `append' (but not `prefix' or `suffix' as a verb),
> # the direct object is always the thing being added and not
> # the original word (or character string, or whatever). "If you
> # prepend a semicolon to the line, the translation routine will
> # pass it through unaltered."
>
> In at least one dictionary where I have looked it up, probably the OED,
> "prepend" is defined only as an archaic word for "to think over".
The AHD shows 'perpend' in that sense.
--
john
change roast to burnt bread to reply
Richard R. Hershberger
> >> a common word. English is young and experimental, and the day
> >> is far when any combination of letters will mean something.
>
> > On the other hand, if one's purpose is to communicate with one's
readers,
> > this is more likely to be achieved by using words they are likely to
know.
> > And even inasmuch as this is an English word (overlooking that it is at
best
> > obslete and quite possibly a nonce word) it means something else. I
suspect
> > that the writer was thinking of the etymological sense. But even this
isn't
> > really right, as "discludere" has a sense of setting apart, while the
> > context suggests that the writer meant more a sense of shutting out.
For
> > this we have the Latin "excludere" which was borrowed into English as
the
> > perfectly familiar "exclude".
> > At best, the writer of this text is showing off by using an
unnecessarily
> > exotic word. More likely, the writer is being proactively clueless by
using
> > an unnecessarily exotic word in favor of a common word, and using it
wrong.
> > Richard R. Hershberger
>
> far when any combination of letters will mean something."
> obsolete ones resurrected in English, the expectation that
> readers know more words increases. This is especially true
> where words or style make writing and reading less cumbersome.
> Americanese is a good example of this. Isn't "boating" easier
> to use in connection with boats than "rowing"? And, "shopping"
> in connection with "shops", than "marketing"?
Perhaps, but after reading this twice I fail to see how this supports
misusing an obscure word rather than correctly using a common one.
Richard R. Hershberger
Richard R. Hershberger
> >> My sentence above should read "... and the day is not
> >> far when any combination of letters will mean something."
> >> As new words are coined, taken from other languages, or
> >> obsolete ones resurrected in English, the expectation that
> >> readers know more words increases. This is especially true
> >> where words or style make writing and reading less cumbersome.
> >> Americanese is a good example of this. Isn't "boating" easier
> >> to use in connection with boats than "rowing"? And, "shopping"
>
> > Perhaps, but after reading this twice I fail to see how this supports
> > misusing an obscure word rather than correctly using a common one.
> > Richard R. Hershberger
>
> there isn't one. But, if a writer wishes
> to recycle an obscure word with a different
> meaning, let him.
I was expecting that you could support your assertions. If this constitutes
a "campaign" then so be it.
Richard R. Hershberger