If you're a journalist or someone writing for the media, using the word "shock" implies the person survived an electrical injury, whereas the word "electrocute" implies they died. So, yeah, if you want to write professionally, you'll need to know that distinction. I don't know why I'm telling you this, but now you know!
13 Comments - Last post 20 minutes ago by WaxWorm
365 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by shiranui112
42 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by justachild8
1,517 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by Formidolosus
1,048 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by MeguminShiro
28 Comments - Last post 8 hours ago by AnonymousBroccoli
17,531 Comments - Last post 9 hours ago by paco7533
846 Comments - Last post 7 minutes ago by Wintermute101
130 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by pivotalHarry
265 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by Calibr3
875 Comments - Last post 28 minutes ago by Ritzman101
553 Comments - Last post 33 minutes ago by toc123
18,088 Comments - Last post 35 minutes ago by andrei0709
161 Comments - Last post 47 minutes ago by CheMan39
 
						
Okay, but- if I am a journalist, and a I write a "shocking reveal", and someone gets a heart attack and dies from it, does it become an "electrocuting reveal"? 😏
Medically speaking, as well as according to the dictionaries I checked, electrocute should mean any serious or fatal injury derived from electricity [though 'electric shock' appears to be more commonly used in referencing any severity of injury], while [circulatory] shock is a term instead more typically used to refer to a life-threatening lack of blood flow, though it can also be used to apply to things such as [being in a state of] psychological shock.
Even non-medically, I've only ever heard shock as it relates to electricity being used to reference minor injuries [eg, "Ouch, I shocked myself!" versus "Timmy shoved a fork into the outlet and electrocuted himself and now he's not moving!"] so it's curious about where journalism makes its distinction (especially as Google makes it rather clear that it's a very consistent distinction in journalism).
Further googling indicates that the fatal injury usage was the original meaning of electrocution (created upon the first use of the electric chair, as a combination of electric and execution) and, as such, it seems that journalism simply adheres to a more classic interpretation of the word than other groups. From what I found it seems that at least forensic terminology also utilizes electrocution with the same distinction, so it's not exclusive to journalism, however.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, I believe it would be an "electrocuting reveal." Haha! And that is quite a lot more information than I expected. Well done, my friend, you win the English-etymology award for the day. If you win this giveaway, I hope you enjoy your stay in the city under the sea, as you contemplate the origins of the many verbs being used to describe the actions of murdering some crazy people!
Comment has been collapsed.
I was shocked to learn this. :o Thank you!
Comment has been collapsed.
Likewise I believe drowning and starving also relate to death but are often used in circumstances when death did not occur.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you! I have learned something new today.
Comment has been collapsed.