"Compromise" and "Compromised"

[onesteptwostep]

"Compromise" basically means 'to come to an agreement'.

"Compromised" basically means 'infiltrated' 'marred' or 'taken over'.

Shouldn't the "-ed" make it so that "compromised" mean 'to have come to an agreement?'

???



Why do you have to do this to me English.

 

[Brontosaurie]

It's the same thing in a way.

To compromise is for parties to mutually give up certain things for the benefit of agreement.

When something has been compromised, it has been deprived of its purity. It has been messed up. It's not the full extent of whole thing any more.

If you compromise a thing, that thing will then be compromised. If two parties compromise, the grammar becomes different and there can be no clear "victim", leading this use of the word to give a less value-negative feel. It becomes more about realistic, wise resource management than about loss as such.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Language man, language.

 

[Black Rose]

Compromise is a trigger word for conservatives sort of like the word liberal.

Instead you should say let's cooperate towards mutual benefit.

https://youtu.be/RBYSltbiu8U

 

[A Son of Two]

"Compromise" and "Compromised"

Compromised and Compromise is personal or relates to the personal
- a border boundary has been compromised
- a compromise has been met between to decision makers

The "-ed" seems to relate to an personal like a possession something owned controlled

The reader compromised in thought while reading this post and chose not to react to the fact that a full stop was not used at the end of each sentence.

The reader breached a logical learnt boundary rule of thought buy not reacting to the fact that a full stop was not used. Logic was seen by the reader to be compromised and for emotional stability a compromise was made and the English was amended and a son of two was awarded a Nobel Prize for his out standing contribution to the evolution of language and punctuation

Blessed be the reformer for he was and still is need

 

[Thurlor]

We compromise so that neither party 'wins' at the expense of the other, but this means that both 'lose' on some level.

Whilst I understand that compromise is usually desirable it really irks me when people claim that compromise is all important and refuse to acknowledge that some positions can't be compromised whilst retaining any real meaning.

 

[Absurdity]

Real eyes realize real lies

 

[QuickTwist]

BaH! Humbug!