If someone is electrocuted, do they have to die or can they just be injured?

Question

Is it correct to say I electrocuted my friend if he was only injured by electricity?

Actually, the only part of that phrase I'd have a problem with is "friend"... — MT_Head, Jul 08 '12 at 19:44
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/electrocute.html and http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Electric_shock — JLG, Jul 09 '12 at 02:55
@JoeZeng - I believe it's short for "grin"; in any case it's an emoticon to indicate that what I've just typed is a joke. — MT_Head, Feb 21 '13 at 18:48
Huh, and here I thought this word could apply to someone licking a 9 volt battery. — candied_orange, Mar 03 '23 at 20:00

MetaEd · Answer 1 · 2016-03-31T20:18:59.887

41

The term electrocute was originally coined in 1889¹ by splicing the prefix electro- into the word execute. It originally meant execute (by electric shock). However, its meaning has evolved over time: first to also include accidental death by electric shock and later to include electrical injury,² generally serious in nature. So your use of the word does not fit the original nineteenth century meaning, but is perfectly in line with the broader meaning of the word as it is understood today.

edited Mar 31 '16 at 20:18

answered Jul 08 '12 at 19:16

MetaEd

28,488

MW and nearly all of the TFD entries, do not agree that this word has "evolved" (nor Wiki, outside of British English). – Mazura Jul 05 '15 at 23:16
Actually, the first few attempted electrocutions (ie, executions via electric shock) failed, though prior to that a number of people (probably hundreds) were killed by what we would now call "accidental electrocution". – Hot Licks Mar 31 '16 at 20:28
@Mazura Oxford is a reputable source. It attests this meaning in American English also. So does the Macmillan, another reputable source. I go to these frequently because of the quality of their research. The Free Dictionary has its uses, but despite its name it is not a dictionary. Rather it is a compilation from free sources, notably 19th century dictionaries. M-W is reliable if you go to the unabridged. – MetaEd Mar 31 '16 at 20:28
@HotLicks - "What about those bank robbers? The ones that made that suicide pact." - "Did they commit suicide?" - "Obviously not, Damon." - "Then they're unreliable." (The Running Man, 1987) – Mazura May 13 '16 at 15:46
@MετάEd - I wouldn't use an American dictionary to attest to British English. – Mazura May 13 '16 at 15:58
@Mazura, TFD compiles from American Heritage Fifth Ed. (2011), Collins 12th (2014), Random House (unspecified, possibly 2011), etc. In short, 21st century sources. If up-to-the-minute rumors (for example, misinformation based on the premise that words, rather than statements, make implications) are desired, Wiktionary or independent research is needed. – JEL May 13 '16 at 23:08
MW has "to kill or severely injure by electric shock" so I guess they've updated since Mazura's comment. – Stuart F Mar 03 '23 at 21:39

score 19 · Answer 2 · edited Oct 25 '18 at 22:48

19

Oxford Dictionaries says:

electrocute: injure or kill (someone) by electric shock.

So, yes, if someone is electrocuted, they can just be injured.

edited Oct 25 '18 at 22:48

Laurel

66,382

answered Jul 08 '12 at 19:12

4

Is that like the People's Front of Judea? – Mitch Jul 08 '12 at 19:24
7

People's Front of Judea? Splitters! – MetaEd Jul 08 '12 at 19:53
Electrocution is death caused by electric shock... In *British English* the word also covers non-fatal injuries -Wiki – Mazura Jul 05 '15 at 23:05

score 12 · Answer 3 · answered Dec 31 '12 at 16:07

12

My husband is an electrician. He reports that in the industry, electrocute is always used to mean death by electricity. They say electrified or (colloquially) lifted to mean receiving an electric shock that is not fatal.

answered Dec 31 '12 at 16:07

Kit Z. Fox

27,819

score 6 · Answer 4 · edited Aug 01 '12 at 22:32

6

You will sometimes see people use it incorrectly when they actually mean shock or, in other words, when someone or something receives an electrical current.

Electrocution actually derives from electricity + execute: “to put to death by means of electricity”. So the correct usage means that someone or something has been killed via powerful electrical current.

Also I may mention that an electrocution also implies the intent of death. So you may electrocute your friend if the intended outcome is their demise, though they may live through it.

edited Aug 01 '12 at 22:32

MetaEd

28,488

answered Jul 08 '12 at 19:05

The two dictionaries I consulted agree with you. From American Heritage, 4th ed.:"electrocute 1.To kill with electricity: a worker who was electrocuted by a high-tension wire 2. To execute (a condemned prisoner) by means of electricity." And from Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 30th ed.: electrocution: the taking of life by passage of electric current through the body" – JLG Jul 08 '12 at 20:46
@JLG: I think there might be differences in usage between AmE and BrE due to the fact that in US death penalty is still frequently applied by electrocute. This method is completely unknown for Brits. However, even the NOAD has a 'special usage' in the sense you are recalled. – Jul 08 '12 at 21:55
1

@Carlo_R, Interesting point, though it is NOT true that the death penalty "is still frequently applied" by electrocution in the U.S. Electrocution is no longer used in the U.S., except if an inmate in certain states chooses it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_chair – JLG Jul 08 '12 at 22:12
8

"Electrocution actually derives from Electricity + Execute or, to put to death by means of electricity. So, the correct usage means that someone or something has been killed via powerful electrical current." The conclusion may be correct, but the argument is 100% bogus. The derivation of a word tells us nothing whatsoever about its correct usage. This is the etymological fallacy. – David Schwartz Jul 12 '12 at 05:10

score 5 · Answer 5 · edited Aug 01 '12 at 22:33

It depends on the degree of precision that’s appropriate for the register you are talking or speaking in.

In more formal use, electrocute would only refer to execution with electricity.

In less formal use, it could refer both to an accidental killing, and a mere injury.

This sense is later, came into the language by extension in colloquial use, and – pertinent to your question – is considered incorrect by some and is at odds with its etymology. It’s this last that makes it better avoided when a formal register or precise use is intended; in day-to-day use it won’t matter that some people might argue pedantically against it, but other times you want to be free from even the worse stickler’s arguments.

If we allow electrocution survivors, next stop is non-lethal executions, immobile automobiles, inaudible telephones and invisible televisions. No sorry the slippery-pope fallacy doesn't apply.. — geotheory, Dec 22 '14 at 13:30

score 2 · Answer 6 · edited Aug 01 '12 at 22:34

2

Unless the injury is life-threatening or at least very severe, I would recommend “I shocked him”, maybe adding “with electricity” if it’s not clear enough from the context.

edited Aug 01 '12 at 22:34

MetaEd

28,488

answered Jul 09 '12 at 06:10

vsz

870

score 2 · Answer 7 · edited Feb 21 '13 at 15:56

2

You could try saying, “I electrified my friend!”

Not precisely what you’re looking for, but at least we’ll know you made a big impression on your friend!

edited Feb 21 '13 at 15:56

MetaEd

28,488

answered Jul 10 '12 at 19:04

monbois

55

score 0 · Answer 8 · answered Mar 03 '23 at 19:03

0

Informally, using "electrocute" to refer to serious, non-fatal injury is acceptable, but I would advise against it; people who know the correct formal definition may think someone died.

answered Mar 03 '23 at 19:03

Someone

760

score 0 · Answer 9 · answered Mar 03 '23 at 19:58

Both fatally and injuriously:

2001 Times (Nexis) 28 July In Georgia I stood outside death row as the state electrocuted a man I thought was probably innocent.

1988 Courier-Mail (Brisbane) (Nexis) 10 May I was electrocuted. I can still smell the flesh burning.

Like much of English, a word is understood in context.

score 0 · Answer 10 · edited Aug 01 '12 at 22:34

0

Comparing with other words, drowning is necessarily a form of death but shooting is primarily a source of injury. How do we want to view electrocution? It’s all in the mind, I suppose.

edited Aug 01 '12 at 22:34

MetaEd

28,488

answered Jul 11 '12 at 06:50

Barry Brown

799

1

The difference lies in the root of the word - 'cution' refers to a method of death. – geotheory Dec 22 '14 at 13:15

If someone is electrocuted, do they have to die or can they just be injured?

10 Answers10

Linked

Related