Is censorships a legitimate word? Obviously it could be used to mean multiple censorships for something.
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
closed as general reference by Matt E. Эллен♦, tchrist, FumbleFingers, MετάEd, cornbread ninja 麵包忍者 Nov 29 '12 at 4:13
This question is too basic; it can be definitively and permanently answered by a single link to a standard internet reference source designed specifically to find that type of information.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
The OED has a citation from Thomas Arnold writing in 1840 in which he refers to the censorships of the two Scipios. That is, admittedly, a rather specialized use, but in 1909 Shaw wrote
while a twentieth century citation has
So, regardless of what you may mean by ‘a legitimate word’, there is good evidence of its use, even if it may not be frequently found.
Of course this is a legitimate word.
Some more quotes below.
In Mrs. Warren's Profession, Shaw wrote that "all censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions" (The Author's Apology).
Dr. Sue Curry Jansen, an expert on issues of freedom of expression, talks about constituent and regulative censorships in her monograph, Censorship: The Knot that Binds Power and Knowledge (OUP, 1991).
Remember, you can use virtually every English noun as countable or uncountable.
That is why David Crystal wrote in The story of English in 100 words, in chapter 34 "Information(s)",