Tell me more ×
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.
up vote 25 down vote favorite
3

What is a verb for illusion? I want to use it in a sentence like the following:

The optical effect [illudes] my perception of its real shape.

But illude does not exist. But I cannot find illude in my Dictionary (OS X Dictionary.app). I want to find a verb that is somewhere between deceive and confuse.

share|improve this question
2  
I think you might be better off if you rephrased your sentence. "The optical illusion affects my perception of its real shape." – KitFox♦ Dec 20 '12 at 2:00
4  
Distorts would also fit. In fact, there is a verb "to illude" (it's actually the origin of the later "illusion"). OED definition 2 says To trick, impose upon, deceive with false hopes. So if OP doesn't mind being a bit "obscure/dated", he could just publish and be damned! – FumbleFingers Dec 20 '12 at 2:49
10  
-1 for unwittingly illuding many into believing "illude does not exist". – Kris Dec 20 '12 at 5:52
Illudes, distorts, befuddles, cons, muddles, fouls, addles, vitiates... – jdstankosky Dec 20 '12 at 14:52
1  
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. – Kris Dec 22 '12 at 6:56
show 7 more comments

12 Answers

up vote 24 down vote accepted

I think confounds is often used in this context.

The optical effect confounds my perception of its real shape.

It has a nice feel of causing consternation without deceitfulness or the sort of blundery feel you get from "confuse." And whereas people tend to be confused, senses are confounded in literature.

share|improve this answer
up vote 34 down vote

Um, what do you mean “illude does not exist”? Sure it does. It’s just a tad rare these days. From the OED:

illude /ɪˈl(j)uːd/, v. Now rare.

Also 6 illud.

Etymology: ad. L. illūdĕre to make sport of, jest or mock at, ridicule, occas. to trick, impose upon, f. il- (il-1) + lūdĕre to play. Cf. obs. Fr. illuder (Godef.).

† 1. trans. To mock, make sport of, deride. Obs.
2. To trick, impose upon, deceive with false hopes.

There a bit more than that, but those other senses are not used any longer; only #2 is. Here are some citations to go with it:

  • 1670 G. H. Hist. Cardinals ɪɪɪ. ɪɪɪ. 293 ― Full of hypocrisie and dissimulation, to lull and illude one another.
  • 1872 M. Collins Two Plunges for Pearl I. iii. 64 ― They had allowed their imaginations to illude them.

They also mention the forms illuded and illuding; for example:

  • 1745 Warton Pleas. Melanch. 185 ― The woodman’s stroke, or distant tinkling team··alarms The illuded sense.
  • 1887 Athenæum 3 Dec. 745/1 ― They [women] come across unfavourable specimens of the illuding sex.

I’m not saying that you’re apt to skate on entirely thick ice if you were to use these, but illude certainly does “exist”, and means pretty much what you would think it means.

share|improve this answer
1  
No mention of it being rare here. "He had allowed his imagination to illude him". – coleopterist Dec 20 '12 at 3:45
1  
@coleopterist Indeed not; rather, it is marked literary, which probably suits it well. – tchrist Dec 20 '12 at 3:48
1  
I think illude is rare enough that readers will think it is a typo of elude though, which would sound odd in this context. – KitFox♦ Dec 20 '12 at 12:11
up vote 9 down vote

I might use the word obscures in that sentence:

The optical effect obscures my perception of its real shape.

From Oxford Dictionaries: "obscure (verb): Keep from being seen; conceal".

share|improve this answer
I like "obscures". It brings in the notion of shadows, which seems appropriate. – luser droog Dec 20 '12 at 10:17
up vote 7 down vote

What about deludes? I haven't seen it used as your sentence would have it, but its definition puts it close to your meaning.

share|improve this answer
1  
but delude sort of has a feel of fooling someone with intention – KMC Dec 20 '12 at 2:18
understood -- I sensed that because you wanted something with a hint of "deceive" it would be more appropriate than a word which simply means "confuse" – Dan Dec 20 '12 at 2:30
You can't delude perception. You can only delude people. – ErikE Dec 20 '12 at 18:50
is there a grammatical rule that dictates that? – Dan Dec 20 '12 at 19:48
up vote 5 down vote

The optical effect dazzles my perception of its real shape.

dazzle: to lose clear vision especially from looking at bright light

share|improve this answer
up vote 4 down vote

Interesting question.

How about "deceive" or "mislead"? But I am not sure if you can replace "illudes" with either of these in the sentence you have given.

share|improve this answer
up vote 3 down vote

mes·mer·ize (mzm-rz, ms-)

tr.v. mes·mer·ized, mes·mer·iz·ing, mes·mer·iz·es

  1. To spellbind; enthrall: "He could mesmerize an audience by the sheer force of his presence" (Justin Kaplan).
  2. To hypnotize.
share|improve this answer
I don't think this word would apply to the O.P.'s context. To mesmerize means to entrance, and the O.P. is looking for a word that indicates something is visually not as it seems. Mesmerize seems much more mental than visual, and I'd say it connotes rapt attention more than illusion. It's still a cool word, though. – J.R. Dec 20 '12 at 10:32
"mzm-rz" seriously, with no vowels? – ErikE Dec 20 '12 at 18:51
up vote 2 down vote

Deceives could be appropriate, as in:

The optical effect deceives my perception of its real shape.

share|improve this answer
up vote 2 down vote

In this context, you might be able to use distorts:

The optical effect distorts my perception of its real shape.

share|improve this answer
up vote 2 down vote

Obfuscate can work.

  1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
  2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
  3. to darken.
share|improve this answer
up vote 1 down vote

Perhaps too extreme, but perverts might work. Or better maybe, subverts.

share|improve this answer
Thx @Reg wilco. So it's "quotes," just in titles, and emph elsewhere? – luser droog Dec 20 '12 at 10:45
2  
we try to consistently use italics for use–mention distinction. Quotes are used for longer phrases or entire sentences. However, in titles italics simply don't work, so we have to resort to quotes even if it's a single word. Also, within a blockquote it's okay to use bold to highlight a particular word. Do stay away from bold italics and code formatting. – RegDwighт♦ Dec 20 '12 at 10:51
up vote -1 down vote

You could use illusory, which is an adverb.

share|improve this answer
That's actually an adjective. – b.roth Dec 20 '12 at 18:51

protected by RegDwighт♦ Dec 20 '12 at 13:56

This question is protected to prevent "thanks!", "me too!", or spam answers by new users. To answer it, you must have earned at least 10 reputation on this site.

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