Search us!

Search The Word Detective and our family of websites:

This is the easiest way to find a column on a particular word or phrase.

To search for a specific phrase, put it between quotation marks.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments are closed.

Unfortunately, new comments on posts on this site have been suspended because of my illness.

Previously approved comments will remain visible.

I deeply appreciate the erudition and energy of our commenters. Your contributions to this site have been invaluable. But I can no longer devote the time necessary to separate good comments from the hundreds of spam comments submitted.

Because Wordpress weirdly doesn't allow me to simply turn off comments en masse, comment boxes will still appear at the foot of posts.

 

 

shameless pleading

Replicate / Duplicate

Kinda like the Mona Lisa done in crayon.

Dear Word Detective: I have noticed, while listening to TV, that almost everybody now uses “replicate” instead of “duplicate” no matter what they are replicating or duplicating. I always tended, perhaps incorrectly, to use “replicate” when one was talking about a physical structure like, say, a boat model. But I used “duplicate” when I duplicated a paper (on a duplicating machine perhaps!). Are these synonyms and interchangeable or is there a real difference between them? — John Sellars.

Well, “replicate” is cooler, y’know. Reminds folks of “replicants,” the artificial humans in the 1980 film Blade Runner, which was the first known use of the term in that sense. (The Philip K. Dick book on which the movie is based, “Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep?”, used the more familiar sci-fi term “android”). Back in the 17th century, however, “replicant” meant simply “new applicant.”

“Duplicate” and “replicate” are considered synonyms, but they do have slightly different meaning in some uses.

“Duplicate” first appeared in English in the 16th century as an adjective meaning “double” or “of two corresponding parts,” as well as a noun meaning “exact copy,” and then as a verb (in the early 17th century) meaning “to double, to multiply by two” or “to create an exact copy” of something. The root of “duplicate” is the Latin “duplicatus,” past participle of the verb “duplicare,” combining “duo” (two) and “plicare” (“to fold or turn back,” also the source of our English “ply”).

“Replicate,” which can, like “duplicate,” be a noun, a verb and an adjective, arose a century or so earlier from roots parallel to those of “duplicate.” In this case it the root was the Latin “replicare,” meaning “to repeat” (“re,” meaning “again,” plus our friend “plicare,” to fold or turn over). In Latin, “replicare” meant to fold, bend back, unroll or, metaphorically, to “turn something over in one’s mind, to consider”). In post-Classical Latin it meant “to repeat; do again,” and that meaning carried over when the verb “to replicate” first appeared in English in the 15th century. In practical use thereafter, it overlapped to a great extent with “duplicate.”

All of which brings us back to “duplicate” versus “replicate.” The shade of difference between the words in modern use lies in the slightly “after the fact” or “in a different form or context” sense that “replicate” carries. If I run the minutes of a meeting through a copy machine as soon as it adjourns, I’d usually say I “duplicated” them. If, however, I mistakenly feed them into the shredder, not the copier, I’m faced with a late night of trying to “replicate” them from chopped paper and my memory. Similarly, a “replica” (which has largely replaced “replicate” as a noun) of a ship will probably be a detailed, but much smaller, model. “Replicate” implies an attempt to re-create an object, action, etc., at some remove of time, space or purpose. As such, it contains a bit more wiggle room than “duplicate.” This makes it ideal for TV commentary, where a bit of vagueness implies good judgment and moderation.

2 comments to Replicate / Duplicate

  • Malcolm stevens

    Hi Evan,
    I’ve been subscribing, or something similar, for a few years now and just wanted to say how much I enjoy your stuff. (My contributions have probably paid for about a fortnight’s worth of cat food. Now there’s a good word. Have you done “fortnight”? Probably. Anyway, I can relate and am living with 3 cats, a dog etc and 3 kids and a lovely wife.) I am prompted to “write” by your story of the pig-poop in the ditch episode. I’m sorry, but I have laughed several times now upon the reading and re-reading of your account of this tale. What I admire about you sir is your ability to laugh at yourself in the face of adversity, the nature of which would drive the average modern day wimp into a flurry of self-pity. You’re a good man.
    All the best from Down Under. (Sydney, Australia, to be prezact.)
    Cheers,
    Malcolm

  • Theophanous

    It would have been much more simple, and maybe a little more accurate, if you had connected the meaning of the two terms with, on the one hand, the “presence of the original” (for duplicate), and, on the other hand, the “absence of the original” (for replicate).

    Presence, of course, and absence, may be understood in many different ways, as one might wonder about the distance, for example, which would entitle someone to talk about either “presence” or “absence” of an object; but such observations, I submit, would be in bad faith and would miss the point of the proposed simple solution!

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Please support
The Word Detective

(and see each issue
much sooner)

unclesamsmaller
by Subscribing.

 

Follow us on Twitter!

 

 

 

New! You have questions? How Come? has the answers!

400+ pages of science questions answered and explained for kids -- and adults!