Crossword Help Forum
Forum Rules

Thanks for that, malone@9 on conflab.

I am cross about the Shorter Oxford and wonder if the editor had an even rudimentary classical education. I don't mind language evolving but not when it's illogical. I hope confab preceded conflab chronologically.

Paul...@11. I wonder if the editors have no choice but to list a word if it's passed into common usage? If 'conflab' has been around since L19, I feel I couldn't push - in 2025 - for its removal. 'Confab' has E18 beside it, that's 1700 -1729.

Words such as 'aggravate' and 'since' are now accepted (grudgingly by some) as having different meanings. We don't have to like this, of course!

Malone, that’s interesting. My SOED which was printed in 1973, cites the date 1701 for ‘Confab’ which is consistent with your E18 and no entry at all for ‘Conflab’.

Swarbs@10, I read recently a University had placed content warnings on Macbeth alerting students to the possibility of “blood, murder, suicide, violence, knives, and family trauma”!

Jono, my SOED is the sixth edition , from 2007, and 'provides a complete update of this unique reference work'.

malone@12, jono@13 on conflab

There is no doubt that conflab appears in some dictionaries, but I found this:

Confab:
This is the original and more common form, derived from the word "confabulation". It refers to a casual conversation or informal discussion.
Conflab:
This is a variant of "confab," often considered a humorous or colloquial alteration. Some sources suggest it might have originated from a desire to add a connotation of "flab" or looseness to the conversation. While not as widely recognized as "confab," it's still used, particularly in British English and some American contexts.
Essentially, both words refer to the same idea of a casual, informal chat or discussion, and while "confab" is the more standard term, "conflab" is also understood and used, particularly in certain contexts.

As Malone has previously said, you don't have to like it. The 'humorous/colloquial' tone of conflab isn't really appropriate to the business pages of The Times.

Paul... thanks, I enjoyed that little bit of background, especially the humorous aspect to the change in terminology.

I feel as if there could be similar debates with, say, 'aggravate'. I expect PE Dant will come along one day and ask 'How and when and why did 'aggravate' come to mean annoy? The original meaning is ....'
Even though I often don't like some of the evolving, I wouldn't, forsooth, want language to stay exactly the same for ever, LOL.

malone
There's an important difference between language evolving, which can make it richer, and two words with different meanings becoming to mean the same, which makes it poorer.
Aggravate and irritate fall into the latter category.

ChrisE, thanks - but I'll stick with my (dictionary-approved) evolving - changing gradually. I may not - and often don't - approve of the resulting changes, but I accept that they happen. A 10-year-old may come across the word 'aggravate', meaning 'to irritate or annoy', in Chambers, but I'd never say to the child, 'No , you can't use that word, it used to mean...' You may feel the change makes language poorer, to the child it's simply a new word (a technically valid word) to add to their vocabulary.

I would correct your ten-year-old, malone (but I was a teacher!)