Talk:conflate

The standard dictionary definition of conflate "to bring two things together and mix or fuse". But in common usage it is most often used as "to mix two things together incorrectly". It is often used combination with with negatives, such as "don't conflate" or "It would be a mistake to conflate". — This unsigned comment was added by Geimcon (talk • contribs) at 21:23, 30 March 2008.

Yes, the connotation is critical. 67.130.129.135 19:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked this word up for the same reason. "Conflate" should almost mean "collude." Basically 100% of the uses in the news are this definition. I haven't edited wiktionary before, so someone please "be bold" and make the change.--Mrcolj 13:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"Conflate" means what it means; that people most often use it (wrongly) as simply a synonym of "confuse" doesn't change that. Certainly, language is not static, and if this usage takes a more permanent hold then the definition should be amended, but I can't help but feel that "conflate" has become some sort of trendy, smarter-sounding version of "confuse" to most that use it, so only time will tell if the old (actual) definition will retain any currency.--172.190.218.156 00:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If most people often use a word "wrongly" they are not using it wrongly, the dictionary is out of date. — This unsigned comment was added by 192.161.158.18 (talk) at 00:49, 28 October 2017.

I am most certain most people do not use it to mean "confuse," though the previous stated definition, "mix things together incorrectly," appears to be the most used definition -- and that sort of conflation could stem from a sort of confusion. I use it in a neutral and negative sense, depending on the point of what I'm conveying.24.2.12.15 06:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Tea Room discussion

The following discussion has been moved from the page WT:TR.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

conflate

A contributor noticed that the citations for this entry were for an adjective sense that we didn't have, so they tried (and failed) to add a definition based on them. I corrected it so it's not blatantly wrong, but it's still not quite right. In the cites, it's used in the phrase "conflate reading" (using an obscure and specialized sense of reading), but a Google Books search on "a conflate" turns up combinations such as "conflate text" and "conflate manuscript". It also turns up the phrase "a conflate", which means that the adjective sense may just be attributive use of a noun sense that we don't have. It also seems to be broader than biblical criticism, since there's also the quote " Menes appears to be a ' conflate ' personage of legend." I can see why no one has tried until now to add a definition based on the cites. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Century Dictionary had it as an adjective: "In diplomatics, marked by conflation; inadvertently formed by combining two different readings into one: as, a conflate text or passage." I didn't find any cites for use in this context.

This seems to actually behave like an adjective inasmuch as a few instances can be found of gradable use and predicate in the context of hermeneutics, but almost exclusively in Biblical interpretation.

• 1975, Frank Moore Cross, Shmarjahu Talmon, Qumran and the history of the biblical text‎^[1], page 283:

  While it is not expansionistic, it is normally inferior to the Old Palestinian tradition preserved in 4QSam ^[sic], and often to the Egyptian despite the more conflate traits of the latter.

I even found an instance of comparability on the web.

The noun usage seems derived from this, but I don't know how to tell based on the evidence. DCDuring TALK 14:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No reference for the attest

Etymology says that the word was attested since 1541 but the footnote reference does not mention any of this. — This unsigned comment was added by 17.67.111.222 (talk) at 10:07, 22 August 2016.