I have been involved in a very serious debate concerning the usage of a certain word for a very long time and wish to end the debate once and for all.
The majority will rule here and it will be The Final Answer
A Scrabble game to be exact is “the cause of it all”
Is the word > requench a word???
A person can re-read a book
re- do something
re- align something
re-fill a prescription etc. etc.
The other side of the argument consisted of the reasoning:
If a thirst is quenched, then it is impossible to
REquench something that is quenched. Hence, requench is not a WORD and cannot be used in a Scrabble game.
But if thats the case… If a book has been read, wouldnt it also mean that the book can not be REread??
I’ve asked several English teachers, students and know it alls and it’s still runnning 50/50.
It is now in your hands my good people, have at it…
Can you Quire something? Because you can require it.
Can you Ply to something? Because you can reply to something.
Can you be a Tard? Because you can be a retard (not you, but people in general).
Can you Scend? Because you can rescend.
Can you Gurgitate? Because you can re-gurgitate (I’m pretty sure you can gurgitate, though).
When you think of something the first time, do you Member it?
Can you Taliate?
You get the point.
Just because it’s a word in one form, does not mean that it’s a word in the other. By definition, you can requench something. But it’s not a word.
And, if you want to get really technical:
When the first thirst is quenched, it is no longer a thirst. You are satiated. So the next thirst that you get would be an alltogether new thirst, therefore you are quenching it for the first time.
msc75 is correct. The arguments in favor of requench simply do not hold up, while the arguments against its use are extremely sound.
You cannot put the prefix re_ in front of any word and create a new one. There are, indeed, many words that start with re_ but this is not infinite.
I have a Master’s Degree in English, if it matters.
Gotta go with a big NO on requench being a (formally recognized) word. I don’t think the logic holds up either. Using the argument that it is a word, you could put “re” in front of just about any action verb.
FTR, I didn’t find it in the OED, Webster’s Unabridged, or OneLook Dictionaries.
I should note that I put “formally recognized” in the first sentence for a reason. Technically, requench is a word since we’ve all just used it and defined it. I even found it doing a search with Google – all ten hits. (It looks like most of those hits are related to metallurgy.) The issue of what is a word is fairly open ended, but requench wouldn’t work in Scrabble since it isn’t in the dictionary.
I think the problem with “requench” has nothing to do with the rules of English, and everything to do with the meaning of the term.
To quench means “to extinguish or put to an end.” If you quench a fire, the fire is eliminated. You can’t requench something that no longer exists (if it burns again, you never actually quenched it). If you quench your thirst, you’re not thisty. If you get thirsty again, you aren’t requenching, but rather quenching a different thirst. Thus, “requench” is nonsensical.
