Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Both "dissociate" and "disassociate" are defined as removing an association but is there a difference between the two? Does the "associate" part of "disassociate" imply a stronger former connection missing in "dissociate?"

share|improve this question
    
I thought dissociate meant to break a compound into components as in chemical reaction, and that disassociate meant to end an association as in an alliance, or social connection that had been established. In the former, what is left are two or more chemical compositions. In the later what you have left are people or groups who disagree with each other. Why is this wrong? –  Cindy Page Jul 23 '13 at 5:50

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

OED says disassociate dates from 1603, and dissociate from 1623, so neither is meaningfully "the original". They're basically the same word, but if you believe this NGram dissociate is used more commonly by a factor of about 4:1 in total.

Many instances of disassociate will in any case be for the specialised chemical sense (compounds breaking down into atoms, ions, etc.) which only applies to that form, so for OP's meaning the usage figures are even more skewed.

Merriam-Webster's dictionary of English usage implies that apart from where that difference in meaning applies, you should probably prefer the shorter word - partly because it is shorter, and partly because it's the more common form. There are no other considerations, or differences in use or nuance.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 For descriptive and insightful answer that addressed the OP's question in full. –  Leo King Dec 8 '13 at 18:06

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.