2

Can someone recommend proper usage of the word "connotate", for example, in a sentence? I am having difficulty distinguishing when to use connote over connotates.

The word 'remaining' connotes (or connotates?) continuing action as before...

Decapitated Soul
  • 16,598
nich
  • 47
  • 1
  • 5
  • 5
    Collins: << connotate [in British English] verb (transitive) obsolete: to connote >> – Edwin Ashworth Aug 20 '20 at 14:47
  • 1
    From connotation, you could produce connotate. But then, I have heard orientation produce orientate, and conversation conversate, and not just once. – Yosef Baskin Aug 20 '20 at 19:46
  • Also, 'remaining' denotes continuing, as opposed to 'connotes' it. While a denotation is the dictionary definition, a connotation is the more subtle hint a word gives. "I've been waiting for you" does denote the wait, neutrally, but may connote impatience. – Yosef Baskin Aug 20 '20 at 20:03
  • Some similar forms like orientate are controversial and inspire a lot of anger; fortunately connotate has a more civil debate. Anyway this question covers a few similar words. – Stuart F Aug 04 '23 at 15:36
  • @StuartF: Yes - of course, everyone knows the only correct word is "orientationalise" ;-) – psmears Aug 14 '23 at 21:37

3 Answers3

6

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary:

connotate (v.)
"to signify secondarily," 1590s, from Medieval Latin connotatus, past participle of connotare "signify in addition to the main meaning," a term in logic (see connotation). It is now obsolete, replaced by connote.

Emphasis mine. A Google Ngram backs it up:

enter image description here

So, to answer your question, there is no proper usage of the word connotate in modern English.

Just use connote.

Micah Windsor
  • 312
  • 1
  • 10
0

"Connote" is by far the most common version. "Connotate", in addition to being rare itself, interferes with the noun form of "connote", "connotation".

WhatRoughBeast
  • 8,573
-2

As someone who studied Latin at school, connotate is by far the prettier version, and connote is an ugly neologism. However, they do mean slightly different things. In general, the extra -at signifies repetivity or a continuing state, whereas without suggests an individual occurrence. One could say "in general, this symbol connotates one thing, but in this context it connotes something else". I don't give two figs though whether I am considered archaic for using language thus.

Peter Higgins
  • 1