infected by radiation poisoning

[victor steinbok]

A quick look in GB gives about 100 ghits for "infected by poison",
including "tenants infected by poison ivy". There is only one hit for
"infected by poisoning"--and that's a 1986 translation from Russian:

"badly infected by poisoning from the wire shackles"

I'll look at the dates more closely when I get a chance.

VS-)

On 8/4/11, victor steinbok <aardvark66 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't have OED access this minute (and for another week), but I'd
> want to look at the examples. It would be interesting to see if there
> is any frequency to "infected with poison", which is still different
> from "infected with ... poisoning". There is also a difference between
> "infected with the [Holy] Spirit" and "infected with radiation
> poisoning". But I would not at all be surprised if I've fallen into
> the recency fallacy on this one. I had to think about that expression
> for a bit and still came to the conclusion that it was odd. A part of
> the problem, for me, is that in radiation poisoning the agent is
> inanimate. Can one be "infected with a headache"? "infected with a
> stroke"? "infected with broken bones"? I wonder, because these are
> closer to radiation than to germs or spirit--but there is no "personal
> or material agent" (except for someone who might have broken the
> bones, a blood clot that might have caused the stroke, etc.). Can one
> be infected with a hereditary disorder or a genetic mutation of any
> kind? Nominally, none of these would be barred by these definitions.
> Of course, 1. would apply to poisons (it literally mentions them), but
> then it's "obsolete or rare"--and perhaps was rare before it was
> obsolete. The same can be said about 2. And 3. and 4. are closer to
> the currently standard meaning--but has the meaning narrowed or are
> the lemmas simply too broad?
>
> VS-)
>
> PS: no need to post all the examples on my account. I'll have access
> again in a few days.
>
> On 8/4/11, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:
>>
>> Seems like an old and honored sense.  From the OED:
>>
>> To imbue a person or thing with certain (esp.
>> bad) qualities; said either of the personal or material agent.
>>
>>   1. trans. To affect, influence, or imbue with
>> some quality or property by immersion or infusion.
>> b. To impregnate or imbue with some qualifying
>> substance, or active principle, as poison, or
>> salt; to taint. Obs. or rare.  (1550 through 1853)
>>
>> †2. To affect injuriously or unpleasantly; to
>> spoil or corrupt by noxious influence, admixture,
>> or alloy; to adulterate. Obs.  (1440 through 1693)
>>
>> 3. To impregnate or taint with deleterious
>> qualities; to fill (the air, etc.) with noxious
>> corruption or the germs of disease; to render
>> injurious to health.  [I.e., not only with germs.]  (1480 through 1885
>>
>> 4. a. To affect (a person, animal, or part of the
>> body) with disease; to communicate a morbific
>> virus or noxious germs so as to generate disease;
>> to act upon by infection or contagion. Also absol.  (c1386 through 1845)
>>
>> [And then various senses less literally related to noxiousness or
>> disease.]
>>
>> Joel
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org