1

Merriam-Webster defines the verb 'conspire' as:

to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement

The verb 'join' implies that there are always at least two conspirators. Someone acting alone cannot form a conspiracy.

Then why do people sometimes say 'coconspirators'? Doesn't the 'con' in 'conspirators' already mean 'together' and so there's no need for the added prefix 'co'?

Dennis Hackethal
  • 139
  • 2
    Two people could be conspirators and not be conspiring with each other but with others. "co-conspirator" identifies them unambiguously. as conspiring together: Bonnie and Clyde were co-conspirators. – TimR Dec 30 '23 at 01:49

1 Answers1

4

As the Merriam-Webster entry points out, co-conspirator (or coconspirator) means "a fellow conspirator." So, to adapt one of their example sentences, consider:

  1. Five of his co-conspirators were jailed.
  2. Five of his conspirators were jailed.

(1) makes sense; on the most obvious interpretation, it means that five people, all members of the same conspiracy as he, went to jail. (2) doesn't make much sense without further context; it means that five members of a conspiracy (or possibly separate ones) went to jail, and that they were "his" in some unspecified way.

Note that this is more or less identical to the distinction between workers and coworkers; the only difference is that a worker might have no coworkers, whereas a conspirator must have co-conspirators, since no conspiracy has only a single member. The fact that conspirator already contains the con- prefix is not, I think, relevant in this regard.

Edit: As Araucaria points out in the comments below, some people do use the word conspirator to mean co-conspirator; you can find examples on Google where "his conspirators" has that meaning. This usage strikes me as incorrect, and you won't find it explicitly mentioned in dictionaries, but the co- is indeed redundant if we consider that usage acceptable. Note that the fact that most uses of "his conspirators" have the "co-conspirator" meaning isn't relevant, since on the most common definition of the word conspirator the collocation "his conspirators" would rarely be used.

alphabet
  • 18,217
  • 2
    No! That’s just one interpretation of “his coconspirators”. Take two people that are coconspirators in some criminal endeavour. Then say that you’re their lawyer. They’re your coconspirators, because you represent them, not because you’re conspiring with them. And if you are a coconspirator in a bank robbery and Bob is a coconspirator in a fraud case, you’re both coconspirators, but not with each other. And if you plan something on your own, you’re neither a conspirator nor a coconspirator. OP is absolutely right that every conspirator is a coconspirator! – Araucaria - Him Dec 30 '23 at 20:29
  • 2
    @Araucaria-Him Yea, on second thought, I'm un-accepting this answer. "Five of his conspirators were jailed" sounds weird only if we accept the tautology. If we don't, the sentence can be taken to refer to the same conspiracy for all people involved. – Dennis Hackethal Dec 30 '23 at 23:40
  • @Araucaria-Him It's by far the most salient interpretation of "his co-conspirators" and, I think, how it would be interpreted in almost all contexts; I wouldn't say "the lawyer's coconspirators" in the situation you described, precisely because it would obviously be understood as asserting that the lawyer was part of the conspiracy. Moreover, that interpretation is very unlikely with "his conspirators"; while every conspirator is a coconspirator (and vice-versa), it doesn't follow that you can replace one word with the other salva veritate in all contexts. – alphabet Dec 31 '23 at 00:47
  • @DennisHackethal Yes, and indeed , that's how it's often used! – Araucaria - Him Dec 31 '23 at 01:04
  • @alphabet Your claim that (2) doesn't work won't hold! Here's over a hundred thousand examples of his conspirators, where virtually all examples show the him to be one of the conspirators! (Sorry if my earlier version of this comment sounded haughty!) – Araucaria - Him Dec 31 '23 at 10:50
  • @Araucaria-Him I've edited my answer--but probably not enough to satisfy you :) Incidentally, this question is now marked as a duplicate; the top answer on the duplicate question (by FumbleFingers) agrees with me. – alphabet Dec 31 '23 at 23:30
  • @alphabet Well, you know what misery loves. – Araucaria - Him Jan 01 '24 at 00:34
  • 1
    @alphabet Incidentally, OPs who state that hundreds of thousands of language users, including writers in published books etc, some of whom famous, are using "incorrect" English is pretty guaranteed to permanently lose them the respect of linguists or serious language enthusiasts. Hundreds of thousands of examples but Alphabet deems it "incorrect". Hmmm. Not a cool look for a linguist. – Araucaria - Him Jan 01 '24 at 00:46