I’ll focus on the etymology. I’m aware etymology does not dictate modern meaning, but it helps a fair bit to understand it:
All those three words are from Latin, then they got either inherited or reborrowed by French, then borrowed by English. In all three cases you’re getting rid of something, but the “result” is different. This is easier to see by the verbs:
- annihilō: ad- (to, towards) + nihil (nothing) + -ō. Roughly “I bring to nothing”: you had something, now you have zero, it’s gone. Like Ratboy Genius saying “there are many things to be erased”, he’s talking about annihilation.
- dēstruō: dē- (of/from; in this case reversal) + struō (I put together). Roughly “I unbuild”, or “I separate”. The pieces are still there, but the build is disassembled. Kind of like when you’re building a sand castle and the arsehole of your cousin kicks it, the sand is still there but no castle.
- eliminō: ēx- (out) + līmen (threshold) + -ō. Roughly “I carry out”. Technically the thing still exists, but it’s out of boundaries, out of mind. Like the “into the trash it goes” meme, it’s elimination.
So no, they aren’t homologous. However in some contexts you could replace one with the other. At least in Latin, no idea in English.
Destruction does not necessarily mean fully gone, but annihilate and eliminate both have the same conotation yes.
There are some uses where eliminate would make sense and annihilate wouldn’t though. And vice versa. Like eliminating wasteful expenditures. Annihilate wouldn’t really work. So very similar words, but not a 1:1 substitution.
Annihilating wasteful expenditures is a perfectly acceptable thing to say, i dont think your example is correct.
It may technically be correct, but the connotation is different. Annihilate suggests more violence or aggression, where eliminate likely does not in that context.
Its word choices like this that make writing sound strange when people use a thesaurus to try to add variety or to make something sound ‘smarter’.
Certain word choices can be more emotionally loaded, more likely to provoke certain thoughts or associations.
In what way is eliminate not violent or aggressive?
In some contexts eliminate would be violent and aggressive. If you eliminate a witness or eliminate competition it has a very different connotation to eliminating a bad habit for example.
Admittedly there can be variation in how people interpret word choice, but there are still differences between the two words.
+1 to you, otherwise
When You Have annihilated the Impossible Whatever Remains, However Improbable, Must Be the Truth
There’s a difference between destroying something so it can never be true, and ruling it out through deductive reasoning why it can’t be true. There’s a greater opportunity to learn by dismissing something but leaving it intact.
Incorrect, annihilate means to utterly destroy.
Eliminate means to completely remove or get rid of something. Eliminations can be violent, but you could also be eliminated from a baking competition — aggression of the bakers themselves notwithstanding.
Annihilations are always violently destructive. I can’t think of a usage for annihilate that isn’t destructive that isn’t also an exaggeration.
