• cmhe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    In german there is only one word for it, which is a gift for german speakers.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      The fact that we’re having this discussion at all kind of proves that either English is losing the distinction, or it was never as clear a distinction as people sometimes make it out to be. Either way I’m fine with it because it doesn’t seem like a very useful distinction to make in everyday language, and you can sidestep it entirely by using a word like toxic instead.

        • 5too@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Nah, if I remember right, those arrows use the poison from a tree frog’s skin, not something like a snake’s venom. So still poison!

  • Ransack3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yep, seen this one before, by the standards outlined it means that:

    Lava is poisonous and Bears are venomous.

    • Jax@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 months ago

      Hmm, I was going to say there’s a chance you survive biting lava - but technically there’s also a chance you survive biting something poisonous.

      So yeah, flawless logic. The most poisonous and venemous things happen to be the pure unbridled power of the earth and 900lbs of muscle and hungry.

  • Kalkaline @leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    If I call a snake poisonous, or a frog venomous there is no knowledgeable person that will be confused about what I’m saying. The only people who bring this point up are people who love to be pedantic.

      • Buglefingers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        2 months ago

        In the way that language is commonly used, yes. People have been using it wrong for so long “jealous” has effectively become synonymous with “envious”. Even if I dislike and disagree with it being used this way.

        If someone is eating a donut and you say “I’m so jealous [of having the donut]” I’m fairly confident most everyone would understand you mean envious by definition but are using the word jealous to convey that meaning.

        • hakase@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 months ago

          Here’s my comment from the last time this came up (like a week ago):

          “There’s been no meaning shift. The “possessive” and “envious” uses of jealous both date from the 14th century in English, and both senses were present in the ancestors of these words all the way back to Greek.”

          It’s always been synonymous with “envious”, as far back as we can trace.

    • AEsheron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Ah, but we can go even further beyond in pedantry. This distinction is only exclusive when we’re talking about a living thing. When talking about the substances themselves, one is a subcategory of the other. A venomous snake is not poisonous, but a venomous venom is a poisonous poison.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Actually a lot of venom is perfectly edible so long as you don’t have a stomach ulcer or cut in your mouth or something.

        • AEsheron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          This is also true. Poisonous doesn’t specifically mean “dangerous when eaten” when talking about the substance. It is an insanely broad category. It basically just means the substance is harmful.

      • TechLich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Yep, and even when talking about living things it’s not a clear distinction.

        In biology, poison is a substance that causes harm when an organism is exposed to it. Venom is a poison that enters the body through a sting or bite. In a bunch of medical fields though, poisons only apply to toxins that are ingested or absorbed through the skin and that definition sometimes carries across to zoology.

        Venomous creatures are poisonous by most definitions because venom is a poison. But if the distinction is useful in a medical or zoological context then they’re not.

        tldr: The pedantry of eg. correcting someone who says a snake is poisonous is totally pointless and mostly wrong.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is the flip side of people trying to justify all kinds of obviously incorrect language by saying it’s just the language evolving.

      • averyminya@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        If it’s colloquially accepted then that does tend to be the case.

        If they are just saying the wrong words and trying to justify it, that’s a different story. But far too often it’s colloquial and classicalists are just being obtuse by not growing with the language.

    • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Wait until you have to go out in the wilderness and eat snakes. Then you find a non-venomous snake with hypodermic poison.

    • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      The toxins are excreted through their skin, and adhere with the oils that keep their skin moist. It is a defense that keeps other animal from eating/touching them. They are not really facilitated to bite as a defense. They pull prey in, and their mouth mostly crushes, and is used to swallow.

        • LwL@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Afaik they all kill you by being introduced into your bloodstream, the difference is mainly how they’re able to accomplish getting there. So any poison will kill you if you inject it, but venom will mostly be safe to eat barring any wounds.

        • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          From the Natural History Museum UK website -

          The hallmark of venom is that it’s introduced via a wound. It can be injected through a number of means, including teeth, a sting, spines or claws. ‘Poison is different as there is no wound involved. It can be absorbed into the bloodstream through the skin, inhaled or ingested,’

  • Lime Buzz@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    Voodoo like they’re suggesting is made up of old racist ideas about certain religions and spiritual practices. So no, they’re wrong and racist about that part.