Talk:obliterate

Biology/pathology definition
my concern is that to change the definition to "To impair the structure and/or function of (a body cavity, vessel, etc.) as for example by occluding it, ablating it, or filling it with tissue" is extremely wide. The use of "as for example" means that occlusion, ablation, or filling with tissue is not a necessary part of the definition. Thus, as long as some activity "impairs the structure and/or function of (a body cavity, vessel, etc.)" that is obliterating it. For example, one could then say that "Betty had a heart attack, and that obliterated her heart," because the heart attack impaired the function of her heart. Do you have any quotations supporting such a broad definition? — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Fair point — the senses in surgery are as wide as to cover both interruption of function and interruption of structure, or both coinstantiated, thus including occlusion by clamping, occlusion by scarring, and ablation of whatever type (laser, cryo, electro), although as you point out, there is a limit to how much that breadth extends outside of surgery. I will go tweak it accordingly. I will plan to search up and collect some attestations. Quercus solaris (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: Done — the citations that I added show some typical examples of usage in surgery. Things that can be obliterated include pulses and perfusion, whose obliteration is usually reversible and temporary, as well as structures filled in or destroyed either by pathologic processes or therapeutically. It bears acknowledgment that the word's polysemic breadth is wide, but the breadth is not surprising though, as natural language does this a lot. For example, the verb "to fuck up" (v.t.), as in to fuck (something or someone) up, has both reversible and irreversible instantiations. A clog fucks up the flow of a sewer pipe, and an earthquake does too, but the clog only fucks up the flow, not the structure, whereas an earthquake fucks up both at once. The verb "obliterate" works analogously in surgical usage. Quercus solaris (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * you haven't updated the definition, which is too broad. As I pointed out one cannot describe anything that impairs the structure and/or function of a body cavity, etc., as "obliterating" it. It must refer to certain ways of impairment only, otherwise one could say that a heart attack obliterated Mary's heart, or that Tom's leg was obliterated in a car accident. How do you propose to reword the definition? — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * please discuss your proposed definition here first. You are making mistakes such as defining a transitive sense in an intransitive manner. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The edit you just reverted can obviously be tweaked to show the transitivity correctly, like "to impair (something)" instead of "to impair something". The thing being impaired is the direct object, obviously. I'll come back to this when I have time. Quercus solaris (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * the point is, you don't plonk an incorrect and poorly worded definition into a live page and then saunter off and say you'll fix it "when you have time", leaving it incorrect in the meantime. I've asked you to discuss and propose the definition here, so please do so. If you aren't able to edit carefully and collaboratively, administrative action may have to be taken. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What's there now is pretty good; I wouldn't agree that it's incorrect solely because it doesn't explain how or why the sense doesn't idiomatically extend to the heart attack and leg fracture examples. Natural language contains many instances of that theme. (It's why I deleted the abrogate link, that I had added, for now; I lack time to figure out how to explain extremely concisely why the word isn't interchangeable.) Point taken about proposing at talk before changing. Will do. I don't see at this moment how to improve it in any short way. Will ponder how that might be accomplished. Quercus solaris (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to disagree with you that the current definition is "pretty good", for the reasons I've explained above. I will try to reword it, because "obliterate" and "impair" are not synonyms, but the current definition makes it appear as it they are. That is wrong. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Meh, that's fine, if you can see how to improve on it. But the nature of what you're up against is plesionymy itself; it's not a trivial challenge. As I write these words, the definition of "fuck up" says things such as "to make a mistake" and "to injure". Is the latter a "wrong" definition, just because it is true that "not all injuring is fucking up"? No, not really. Quercus solaris (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * that situation is not comparable. You can use fuck up synonymously with injure: "I tripped over and fucked up my ankle". However, most of the time you cannot use obliterate to mean "impair a body cavity, etc.". Please take this to the Tea Room for further discussion. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)