Travel according to the most common version comes from tripalium, a torture device.
If you assume that genocide must be about killing because it comes from a Latin word for killing, then being nice should be about being ignorant because it comes from a Latin word for ignorant.
Didn’t know that about that messy complexity surrounding the word nice but I’ll just say that feels like a false equivalence in terms of recency of the words. Apparently that word is much older and went through the sloppy unfortunate conversion it has. Good to know about these etymological minefields though, you can’t just blindly consult etymology especially on old words where language has shifted. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/31368/what-are-t...
Those examples I’m guessing have no record of those who coined them, genocide however appears to have such a record.
Interesting, so I think you're trying to draw attention to Article II yes?
"""
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
"""
I wouldn't recognize this as a dictionary definition but rather a legal document outlaying its premises and defining its terms. All but item b I'd argue are a form of killing, the ending of the demographic line either immediately or incrementally. You have to look at all these definitions in terms of the ultimate end being sought after by the perpetrators and these five categories are all means of doing so. The only stretch definition is b which I imagine is a much slower form of destruction. It's still a necessary clause though because imagine a dictator amputating the hands of all members of some group and claiming they didn't kill them therefore they didn't commit genocide. That would be a fraudulent claim because they effectively severely debilitated their ability to provide for themselves and function, they severely wounded that group so that one wouldn't be surprised if they did wind up dying and not thriving some time later on account of that action through indirect causes directly tied to that original offense.
It's not an ancient word however, apparently it's a 20th century construction coined by Raphael Lemkin.
"""
He decided to create a name for the crime without a name. He came up with genocide, which he defined as the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group. He said he created the word by combining the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing).
"""
https://www.facinghistory.org/ideas-week/where-did-word-geno....
The book he coined the word was authored in 1944, the UN convention was signed in 1948 https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention..., very close in time and I'd say complimentary but still a legal document meant to get in writing specific means of destruction for that genos. So it's a emphasis on the means, not the end, and I'd say an equivalent definition is intentionally causing the end of a collective bloodline however that end may be accomplished.
you seem interested in the history of the term, it seems like it would behoove you to continue researching such history until you get to the point where said history explains how the term is currently, commonly used, e.g. to refer to cultural genocide, for example the cultural genocide china is perpetrating on Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang
> cidium "act of killing," from caedere "to kill, to cut down" (from PIE root *kae-id- "to strike"). https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=homocide https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=fratricide https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=suicide
lots of others