Co-conspiracy theory

[HMS Irruncible]

Does anyone else agree that the word "co-conspirator" is needless and should be avoided in favor of "conspirator?" I think the additional "co-" is redundant because there's already a perfectly good "con-" signifying that conspiracy is a group activity.

I've heard people argue that it is needed to distinguish between conspirators in multiple conspiracies, but I don't really think that washes. If that's true, then why don't we invent the word "multi-international" to indicate multiple international relationships? It makes about as much sense to me.

[Gary T]

John was Bill's co-conspirator. Tom was Bob's co-worker.

In both cases, the "co-" word clearly and succinctly conveys specific information that would otherwise take lengthy phrases.

[HMS Irruncible]

John was Bill's co-conspirator. Tom was Bob's co-worker.

In both cases, the "co-" word clearly and succinctly conveys specific information that would otherwise take lengthy phrases.

I don't think that is true in both cases. The "co" is necessary in "co-worker" because "worker" alone contains no roots or affixes to indicate a collaborative relationship. However, the "con" adequately conveys this in "conspirator."

I don't think the added specificity of "co-conspirator" is useful except in contrived hypothetical situations.

[tomndebb]

Regardless of your opinion or the opinion of any subsequent posters, it is the opinion of this Moderator that there is not a factual answer being sought, so I'm shuffling this one over to InMyHumbleOpinion.

[ /Moderator Mode ]