De-duplicate is certainly a word in my industry. It's used to describe the process of removing duplicate entries - for example if you have recorded a customer twice under similar addresses and you want to make sure that all orders point to one of the customers.
But in the context you have it here - that's just wrong!
That's fair enough. It hasn't made it into Chambers yet though.
People make much the same comments about - say - concretisation, sytagmatic and so forth in LitCrit. That too is technical talk, and not (necessarily) aimed at outsiders.
I don't think I'd object to reduplicate, mind. Deduplicate sounds too much like a stutter to me.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
But in the context you have it here - that's just wrong!
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
It's not a new coinage, by the way, it's been around for the whole 20 plus years I've been working in IT.
It should never be used in an non-technical context, though!
From:
no subject
People make much the same comments about - say - concretisation, sytagmatic and so forth in LitCrit. That too is technical talk, and not (necessarily) aimed at outsiders.
I don't think I'd object to reduplicate, mind. Deduplicate sounds too much like a stutter to me.