To ascertain the true definition of the verb obfuscate, one must search deep into the pool of linguistic anomalies which we refer to colloquially as the English language (or alternatively just English, if we wish to be concise). This language, although used by a great multitude of people, has no single definitive form (although traditionally, the original English spoken natively in the British Isles (otherwise known as Great Britain and The United Kingdom, although these terms technically refer to different entities) could be considered authoritative. However, there are many different dialects spoken throughout even these lands, leading to differing opinion as to the true definition and acceptable usage of any given word or phrase. This leads us to the conclusion that there actually is no true definition of the verb obfuscate, and perhaps the whole concept of language itself is inappropriate. Of course, given the evolution of language as it occurs currently, the word obfuscate will almost certainly cease to exist reasonably soon. Taking these rather important factors into consideration, one might observe that we could help advance the evolution of language now by refusing to accept this word as part of the English language. —This unsigned comment was added by Paddlesnap (talk • contribs).
- In Thomas Elyot, The Governour one finds,
- "Also the virtues being in a cruel person be not only obfuscate or hid, but also likewise as nourishing meats and drinks in a sick body do lose their bounty and augment the malady, similarly divers virtues in a person malicious do minister occasion and assistence to cruelty."
- see also in the same book, obfuscate, obscured, darkened and, in Thomas Elyot's Dictionary, offuseo, are, to make blacke, or darke. --Jbergquist (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)