# Co-conspiracy theory

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/co-conspiracy-theory/282382>\
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion\
**Created:** [December 31, 2004, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/co-conspiracy-theory/282382 "2004-12-31T05:31:45Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\
**Post date:** [December 31, 2004, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/co-conspiracy-theory/282382/1 "2004-12-31T05:31:45Z")

</div>

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\
**Post date:** [December 31, 2004, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/co-conspiracy-theory/282382/2 "2004-12-31T05:37:37Z")

</div>

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\
**Post date:** [December 31, 2004, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/co-conspiracy-theory/282382/3 "2004-12-31T06:05:10Z")

</div>

> [@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.

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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\
**Post date:** [December 31, 2004, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/co-conspiracy-theory/282382/4 "2004-12-31T06:09:21Z")

</div>

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 **I** n **M** y **H** umble **O** pinion.

[/Moderator Mode]