5

I wonder whether I can use the word "impotence" to describe something as being weak or as it having fallen off.

I'm using this word in the "about me" page in stackoverflow.

Software, being soft, breaks our fated chains of martyrdom and escorts us out from the cave; the cave of scarcity. We are to progress into a new age, the cerebral age, if you will. The age where self interest will be de-demonized, but also lost due to its own impotence. We are freed from animal self-indulgence into a world where man acts, just acts.

2 Answers2

12

Even in serious writing, as this sample clearly is, aimed at a serious audience, there is absolutely no problem, this being so because as a well established usage exists and as readers have no reasons to look for meanings that make for nonsense when the obvious one is pointed by the context, the real business in reading you is to understand what you mean.

(SOED) 1 = IMPOTENCE 1.

(SOED) impotence 1 Lack of strength or power; helplessness; weakness; feebleness.

You shouldn't even be stopped by the real possibility that an educated reader, out of contempt for your way of thinking, simply because of being out of step with you for instance, could occasionally make a pun involving sex (not necessarily concerning you personally) in a derisive manner. Such eventualities do not usually condition the choice of words.

LPH
  • 20,841
  • 1
    @AlexandrosKourtis You can vote for as many answers as you want; any way, it is often the case that no single answer has the full solution to a problem. – LPH Aug 17 '20 at 19:45
  • 3
    @DecapitatedSoul SOED, The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, a two volume dictionary (4000 pages, A4) conceived on historical principles. In particular it provides for each meaning the period when that meaning has first been recorded and if relevant the period when it has last been recorded. – LPH Aug 18 '20 at 09:56
  • 1
    Thanks. I didn't know that. – Decapitated Soul Aug 18 '20 at 09:57
  • 3
    "Such eventualities do not usually condition the choice of words." - counterpoint: characters in literature certainly seem to ejaculate less than they used to a century ago. – Maciej Stachowski Aug 18 '20 at 11:15
  • 1
    @MaciejStachowski This can be explained insofar as the "primary" meaning, from which stems the metaphorical definition, has to do with sex and so modern thinking has it that a cleaner expression should do away with strong connotations that have become somewhat obtrusive. This is not the case for "impotence": going back to its origin in Old French, the word has nothing special to do with erectyle dysfunction; if that came to be included, today in French this term is applicable to any individual who is afflicted of any bodily handicap. (1/2) – LPH Aug 18 '20 at 12:13
  • 1
    @MaciejStachowski agree that this case you highlight and some others of the same sort deserve the writer's attention and that some soul searching before using such a term is a good idea. I suppose that this can be covered by the caveat that implies the "usually" figuring in my answer. It is interesting to note that the verbal form "ejaculated" is almost uniquely a literary term in the 19th century whereas the skyrocketing use of it since 2000 is uniquely due to scientific use. (2/2) – LPH Aug 18 '20 at 12:15
  • 2
    Even in less serious writing. "Throg shook the bars of his cell and howled at his impotence" is fine. – Owen Reynolds Aug 18 '20 at 15:44
  • 1
    @OwenReynolds Yes, I can see that the felt opposition to some other sort of writing that is perceptible in "In serious writing", as if implying there could be problems in some such other sort, does not hold water. I didn't mean that opposition and the sort of writing you refer to still belongs to that rather elusive category I call serious. I probably should change that. – LPH Aug 18 '20 at 16:11
  • 2
    @LPH, it is not clear why you think that the 'primary' (which you put in quotation marks) meaning of ejaculation, but not of impotence, has to do with sex. So far as their respective etymologies are concerned, neither has any special connection with sex. So far as their most frequent present-day uses are concerned, both have to do with sex. – jsw29 Aug 18 '20 at 19:33
  • 2
    @jsw29 Let's not forget that etymologie is one thing and meaning another. "Ejaculate" comes from the latin "ejacere" (to throw), which has, directly, little to do with the animal function. However, the introduction of this word into the English language is under the meaning "forcefully eject (semen) on achieving orgasm", and that was in the late 16th centurry and this meaning has been preserved intact and used up to the present day. – LPH Aug 18 '20 at 19:47
5

The meanings of impotence (aka impotency) given by Lexico are

1 Inability to take effective action; helplessness.

2 Inability in a man to achieve an erection or orgasm.

A man with erectile dysfunction is usually described as being impotent rather than 'having impotency', unlike 'having measles' or 'having the flu'.

Weather Vane
  • 20,971
  • @Fattie Is there a way to "migrate" it to ELL? I don't want to ask the question again and delete from here. Just move it there. I will delete the sample text too. –  Aug 19 '20 at 08:11
  • 1
    Don't be so measly. Or influenzal. – Mitch Aug 21 '20 at 18:39
  • 1
    @Mitch next will be 'impotenciness' - but I see the question has been edited! – Weather Vane Aug 21 '20 at 18:41
  • In contrast to Both of my suggestions, measly and influenzal, are attested (non-leogistical) adectival versions of the corresponding nouns (but of course 'measly', like 'lousy', means something distinct from the sum of parts). There's no need for the outlandish 'impotenciness' since the pair 'impotence/impotent' already exists. – Mitch Aug 21 '20 at 19:38
  • 1
    @Mitch that's what I mean: the question originally asked about 'impotency' not 'impotence' which I answered indirectly. Hence too the off-topic 'metal detectorist' who I would call a 'metal detective'. – Weather Vane Aug 21 '20 at 19:43
  • Oh, I didn't notice either. But no big thing. 'Impotence/impotency' are equally acceptable in US English (though of course the second is not as common). I feel like there was a very recent ELU question that covered a number of other acceptable minimally different pairs. – Mitch Aug 21 '20 at 20:16
  • Of course see also Normality vs normalcy – Mitch Aug 21 '20 at 20:18
  • @Mitch like it or not, language is fluid. We don't all speak the same English in my own country. – Weather Vane Aug 21 '20 at 20:20