I have a limerick over at the OEDILF on the word "exsanguinous" (drained of blood) and after a few minor tweaks it's sailed through their approval process.

Someone has suggested adding the word "exsanguious" (no "n") as a synonym.

I checked and sure enough a few dictionaries at Onelook carry this variation. To me it has the look of one of those dictionary transcription errors as the version without the "n" doesn't seem to make much etymological sense.

Does anyone know if that's the case? Or maybe not?

I find no alternative to exsanguinate, so I think it's an error. However, exsanguinate could be used as an adjective, I suppose, and would be a synonym.

PS: Are there any vampires in China whom you could ask?

"exsanguious" in the OED, from Latin exsanguis "bloodless": sanguis "blood".

"exsanguinous" is formed on the inflected forms of "sanguis": "sanguinis, sanguinī, sanguinem sanguine" etc.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

It's an interesting question, Bob. I've not heard of it in the medical world, but then I suppose there's a lot I haven't heard about. I'd say you are right. It may be because of the Latin origins from ex and sanguis or sanguinis, as goofy points out.

Have any of you ever heard the term exsangious, though? Also, none of the dictionaries that have it are all that reputable. I think it's a mistake, and I'd not add that word.

exsanguious is not a mistake. As I say, it's in the OED and it has no n because it has a slightly different etymology. It's not very common though, there are only 3 citations and the latest is 1841.

Is it marked as archaic or obsolete?

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
Is it marked as archaic or obsolete?

no

quote:

exsanguious is not a mistake. As I say, it's in the OED and it has no n because it has a slightly different etymology. It's not very common though, there are only 3 citations and the latest is 1841.

Well, I really don't get it then. What is the difference in meaning? Nothing? If the meaning is identical (and I think it is), it certainly doesn't make sense, particularly if it's not used. It's one thing to have synonyms of words, but to have the same word, with one letter missing and with the same meaning? If you say that's all true, goofy, I am going to write John Simpson and ask him about it.

I'm not sure what the problem is. It doesn't have to make sense, it's just the way things happened.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

Apparently "exsanguineous" (with an extra "e") is also a variant spelling.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
exsanguineous

The OED says that one is obsolete.

Then let's all start using it!

quote:

I'm not sure what the problem is. It doesn't have to make sense, it's just the way things happened.

After I wrote that, goofy, and got off the computer, I realized that of course it isn't considered another word...just a variant spelling. Duh! It has been a busy week here in Charlotte!

So have we bled this thread till it's dead?

bloody interesting, wot