Should We Include, 'Disclude?'

The question is, pursuant to my definition, (see verb form below) should we create a new word, 'Disclude,' and slightly alter the meaning of the word, 'Exclude?'

I believe that, "Disclude," is a perfectly legitimate word which excludes something in a very specific way. Here is my definition for the verb form:

Disclude (verb): To deliberately omit an item, or items, from consideration that would normally be considered within a given set.

***The difference is, when you exclude something, it could be a thing that either would or would not normally belong to the set. Let's say I am looking at the population of a city, but I don't want to include any males between the ages of 12-14, I would disclude those because they would normally be there. If a company has a contest, then they might simply exclude employees and family from winning, but you would not disclude employees and family, because employees and family would not normally be in that set anyway due to the appearance of bias.

Simply put, when you disclude something, you are deliberately setting aside and removing a subset that would otherwise be there. I don't believe that most sentences that use the word, "Exclude," have the proper context clues to indicate whether or not the omitted item(s) would normally be part of the set.

If disclude were to become a word, then, "Exclude," would strictly mean omitting an item(s) because it doesn't belong in the set in the first place.

Excise or Eschew are valid alternatives. I don't think we need a new word here.

Quote: s2dbaker

Excise or Eschew are valid alternatives. I don't think we need a new word here.

Eschew has to do with avoiding something on moral or practical grounds which has nothing to do with the elimination of an item(s) from a set. I have no moral reason that I would want to know the population of a city having discluded all 12-14 year old males.

Excise refers to taxing something, generally, but the lesser known definition just refers to removing something by excision, which is generally a surgical procedure.

Exclude would actually be more appropriate than either of these.

A better mousetrap requires better mice. Exclude does the job, no need for a new word.

Wiktionary definition of disclude

The word is discussed, but is classified as "nonstandard" ( Not conforming to the language as accepted by the majority of its speakers.)


Generally all variations of word (different prefixes and suffixes) seem like they should exist, but often don't exist or are rarely used.

The political satire "In the Loop" which featured the recently departed James Gandolfini, and Peter Capaldi (the new Doctor Who) had a long discussion of the word inevitable. One character wonders if evitable is even a word. The answer is yes it is, but it is not commonly used.

Quote: Pacomartin

Wiktionary definition of disclude

The word is discussed, but is classified as "nonstandard" ( Not conforming to the language as accepted by the majority of its speakers.)


Generally all variations of word (different prefixes and suffixes) seem like they should exist, but often don't exist or are rarely used.

The political satire "In the Loop" which featured the recently departed James Gandolfini, and Peter Capaldi (the new Doctor Who) had a long discussion of the word inevitable. One character wonders if evitable is even a word. The answer is yes it is, but it is not commonly used.

Well, Mission, there goes your claim. Shall we bandy about some words that don't exist and see if we come up with something?

Fale
Croin
Crunk
Drane
Blide
Frint
Cosder

It's becoming like a game of 'Call My Bluff' or 'the meaning of Liff' around here....

One simple curiosity in English is the fact that an English dictionary suggest that the following are proper English words.

much məCH/determiner & pronoun = a large amount
much məCH/adverb = to a great extent; a great deal
disgust disˈgəst/ noun = a feeling of revulsion or profound disapproval aroused by something unpleasant or offensive
disgust disˈgəst/ verb = cause (someone) to feel revulsion or profound disapproval
disgusting disˈgəstiNG/ adjective = arousing revulsion or strong indignation
gustatory ˈgəstəˌtôrē/ adjective = concerned with tasting or the sense of taste
gusto ˈgəstō/ noun = enjoyment or vigor in doing something; zest

Yet the word gusto is not an adjective in English, like it is in Spanish



Given that all the other variations of "gusto" are in English, why not that one?

Incidentally Spanish "mucho" and English "much" are not from the same ancestor word

Quote: Pacomartin

The political satire "In the Loop" which featured the recently departed James Gandolfini, and Peter Capaldi (the new Doctor Who) had a long discussion of the word inevitable. One character wonders if evitable is even a word. The answer is yes it is, but it is not commonly used.

Ok, it's bothering me, might as well say something.

You bring up "evitable", but you used another one just a few sentences prior.

"Discussed"

To discuss is to talk about something with another or a group of people

To cuss is to swear or curse.

What am I missing?

Know you're a hockey guy, but in professional football (I won't consider prep or college because the rules change with the tides) in simpler times (dead ball era) there was a five yard penalty for defensive offsides: crossing the line of scrimmage before the ball was hiked.

That morphed into the somewhat interchangeable "offsides" or "neutral zone infraction" depending on the referee's disposition at the time.

Ultimately, it became "unabated to the quarterback" so the question is: if a defender strolled or sashayed across the line of scrimmage and thus "abated to the quarterback" then no penalty and no flag would be thrown? :-)