If you don’t want to play, fine. Don’t threadshit.
Here’s the thing about this issue. You will almost NEVER hear the term “poisonous” used by any expert to refer to venomous animals. Animals that have an active venom delivery system are “venomous”, those that are generically toxic to consume or handle are “poisonous”. The distinction is actually important because it can make a huge difference on how the animal is handled and whether or not it may be consumed.
Lionfish have spines that deliver venom, they are venomous. Puffer fish (fugu) are full of a toxin, they are poisonous. Lionfish may be eaten, you just need to be careful around the spines. Pufferfish are toxic in general and you can and will die if you eat them in anything but the most careful of preparations.
Toads are venomous, they have venom glands that express a milky venom into the mouth of a predator. Poison Dart Frogs are poisonous; their entire skin is toxic and handling them improperly can kill you.
Regardless of pedantry or english parlance, there is an important distinction to be made; particularly in dealing directly with animals.
That’s just it. In this context, it doesn’t fucking matter.
Being a pedantic prescriptivist dillhole, I can’t be anywhere but in Team Venom. Words have a meaning, proper nomenclature is important, vagueness of terms and people using “their definition which is just as good as anyone’s because nobody owns words” breed confusion and misunderstanding, make communication more difficult one ambiguity at a time, yadda yadda.
Poison’s the passive kind, venom the active kind. Simple distinction. The one case I’m unsure about is the case of poison-coated weapons. Should it properly be dubbed a poisoned dagger or a venomous blade ? Hmmm…
Here’s one case where you’d think the French ballooned vocabulary would dispel all such haziness - and we do have a third word to cover that third case. Vénéneux for “if you eat that you’ll get ill”, venimeux for “if it bites you you’ll get ill”, and empoisonné for “somebody tampered with this thing using stuff that’ll make you ill”. Naturally people still use all these terms more or less interchangeably :smack:.
Life ain’t easy for your average pedantic prescriptivist dillhole 
As a lifelong speaker of the English language, I have confidence – backed by decades of observation – that when ambiguity arises, some people will assume one thing, others will assume the opposite, a certain number will be baffled, and, more often than not, everyone will assume their interpretation is the correct one.
Can’t really compare them. Black Metal is something that I might put on another two or three times in my life, just as an ironic, “reliving my teenage years” thing. If I’m having a party, Look What The Cat Dragged In still works.
I’m curious what you think about this sentence from the Wikipedia entry on ricin:
“Ricin is poisonous if inhaled, injected, or ingested, acting as a toxin by the inhibition of protein synthesis.”
Misleading or not?
Exactly. From here:
While this author agrees with the OP, he also isn’t being pedantic about it.
As for people who are screaming about words having meaning, the point here is that the subject matter is so commonly used and understood; there isn’t going to be a misunderstanding. If there were many snakes whose flesh were poisonous, but whose bite didn’t contain any venom, then it would be helpful for someone to point out incorrect usage. As it is, it doesn’t fucking matter, as someone once said.
If it’s an important distinction, it will sort itself out. Unless you thought Rigamarole’s poll would end the question for all time?
That’s fine. If someone wrote “ricin is venomous if inhaled, injected or ingested…” I’d think they were a bit of a moron.
I agree there is no ambiguity, but you are the one who is absolutely completely fucking wrong.
I should note that in the original thread your two “citations” were this:
- A wikipedia article, which is of little value as a citation in and of itself.
- A link to an online dictionary, for which other posters have provided evidence that several major online dictionaries would allow for someone to call a snake poisonous and be perfectly correct.
Basically you came into a thread and made a strong factual claim namely, that you can never call a snake “poisonous.” Unfortunately, at best you could have said “most experts wouldn’t use that term.” But under the usage of words in the English language the terms have ambiguous meanings and there is nothing factually wrong with saying “poisonous snake.”
The way I see it, if you’re going to be pedantic about something you need to be unambiguously correct. If someone has “prostrate cancer” there is no doubt that they are using a word incorrectly, but this isn’t a case of such a thing, so you were really unjustified in your pedantry. Pedantry only makes sense when it’s an unambiguous matter, usage of the word “poisonous” is simply not unambiguous–even though you desperately seem to want it to be.
It’s like the people who say “tomatoes are fruits not vegetables!!” Well, in science a tomato is a fruit of the tomato plant, and is a “true fruit.” But the “general usage” in say, cooking, for the word “vegetable” would not preclude tomato be a vegetable in that sense. Fruit has a very specific definition scientifically (and because it clashes with the more general usage of the word fruit that’s why people sometimes have to specify “true fruits” because many common “fruits” aren’t), however vegetable doesn’t have such a strongly defined and strict definition in science. Vegetable isn’t really a science term at all, and in contexts such as cooking, vegetable has a meaning that clearly overlaps with what a tomato is used for in the kitchen.
So that’s a good example of something you could be pedantic about, but would be wrong to be pedantic about. In many contexts it actually isn’t incorrect to call a tomato a vegetable. Now, it is unambiguously incorrect to assert that “calling a tomato a fruit is wrong”, because a tomato is factually a fruit.
However, no one has said snakes aren’t venomous, just that it is wrong to say that it is “incorrect to call them poisonous.” It may not be the way some people would say it in some contexts, but factually speaking it is not incorrect to say that anymore than it is incorrect to say a tomato is a vegetable.
Essentially if someone says a “snake is poisonous” they mean that it has a poisonous bite, because the snake has the ability to force poison into the animal that it bites, thus poisoning them. Animal produced poison that is delivered to prey in this method is synonymous with “venom” and to poison in this way is “envenoming” no one denies that. Poisonous is not very specific, and that is why it’s not a bad idea to use the term venom, but it’s true that snake venom is poisonous (at least to most animals) and that a snake’s bite can poison you, which is really why the term “poisonous snake” is used.
It’s akin to people correcting individuals who say “yeah I’m allergic to bees” with “no, you’re allergic to a bee’s venom.” Well, yes, that is what the person is allergic to, but you’re just being more specific than them, it’s not a case of them being wrong and you being right.
In this specific context, I’m going with poison. When someone says “poisonous snake” no one will actually misunderstand what they are saying.
However, in other contexts where it is not universally known whether Animal Blibxchitubl is poisonous or venomous, I would actually prefer that the distinction be made, because the phrase “poisonous Blibxchitubl” is not in common usage as a synonym for “An example of a Blibxchitubl species whose bite is venomous.”
As Martin Hyde has made an excellent case for, you were 100% unambiguously wrong to claim, as you originally did, that it is wrong to refer to a rattlesnake as poisonous. Rattlesnakes are poisonous according to the dictionary definition and to common English usage.
You should simply admit you were wrong on this point. Continuing to try to deflect the issue with a bullshit poll doesn’t make you right.
Definitely have different meanings. And I’m sorry to be contrarian, but if someone told me about a poisonous snake, frog or fish, I’d wonder if it was poisonous to touch or to eat, not be worried about whether or not it could inject venom, because that’s not what that word means to me. I’m not much of a pedant overall, but to me it is clear that venomous and poisonous have two different scientific meanings, and should not be lumped together in one definition.
I will admit that common usage often obfuscates the difference between the two, and that I’m more scientifically minded than most people. But if someone came up to me and said, “State the difference between a poisonous animal and a venemous animal” I’d have relatively little difficulty in articulating a response that most scientists would agree with, I think.
Meaning of language is determined by usage, and the people have spoken. Give it up buddy.
The poll options are not exhaustive enough, since “venom” is a subset of “poison”. Thus, it is correct to say that rattlesnakes are poisonous, but it is not correct to say that “poison” and “venom” are exact synonyms.
To me, a rattlesnake is not poisonous. I’ve eaten rattlesnake. So has my grandpa. We didn’t get poisoned.
I admit that venoms ARE poisons, if that’s what you’re getting at. But the scientific distinction between a poisonous animal and a venomous animal is important to me.
Some snakes may be poisonous, I’m not sure. Does anyone know of any snakes that will poison you if you touch or eat them?
Anyhow, I realize I am probably an outlier in my understanding and usage of the term poisonous.
Nope, that is the normal and (obviously IMO) correct usage.
I’ll just note here that your belief, that “poison” and “venom” have non-overlapping meanings, has zero votes. It isn’t even an option in your poll.