21:54 Apr 17, 2011 

First of all, many thanks to everyone for their help!

This is a British text.

20:14 Apr 17, 2011 

We do have equivalent terms: intercepted, stopped, seized are probably more satisfactory because more specific. Re. the military context, my point was a linguistic one. Language is not neutral.

19:44 Apr 17, 2011 

Indeed, yes, and I didn't for a moment suggest that it wasn't US usage — but I don't see that as a reason to invalidate it as a term! Especially since AFAIK we don't actually have the equivalent specific term in UK English — so sooner or later, we're going to have borrow it from them ;-)

Regarding your objections to the use of the word in the military context, I can only agree most vehemently with you, although this is of course not an appropriate forum to discuss this sort of topic...

19:36 Apr 17, 2011 

I fear that I agree with Ellen in thinking that interdicted in this sense is US rather than UK usage. However, I absolutely disagree with the rest of what Ellen writes. This is how the writer is using the word and there is no point insisting on a different meaning because you don't like their usage.

Of course language changes and UK English has benefitted from assimilating many US words. However, I find this particular word in its US military usage deeply unpleasant because it tends to be used to dehumanise victims of US military actions, or deny their existence by pretending that only an abstract action was involved.

19:10 Apr 17, 2011 

Well, just because words may have their semantic origins several millennia ago, I don't think we can be like King Canute and try and pretend that language isn't a living, evolving thing.

I think, however, you are seeking to over-simplify ad absurdum the nuance of meaning in this instance. 'interdict' doesn't merely mean 'intercept', but as Stephanie's definition points out, goes beyond mere interception — hence presumably why a new word had to be found. As for your argument that it seems to be a specifically US usage, well, that's maybe not surprising, the United States are responsible for enriching our language on many fronts, and I'm sure the fight against drugs is an area in which they lead the field.

So don't let's be Luddites, or ostriches with our heads stuck in our dictionaries!

18:59 Apr 17, 2011 

thank you, Tony for your explanatory remarks. Nonetheless I am disappointed that all of a sudden the Latin-derived verb (interdicere = untersagen, verbieten and nothing else) interdict (interdiction) may be translated as intercept (interception). I really feel let down. I read the links Stephanie offered, they are all of American origin, also the dictionary she mentions (Webster) is American. None of the British English sources I consulted on this point confirmed that iinterdiction may be interpreted as synonym of interception. Collins, Cassells, Pons and Langenscheid all clearly differentiate between these two terms as not being interchangeable. I think we ought to oppose wanton shifts of meaning of words derived from Latin or ancient Greek. How could we explain this regrettable tendency from a semantic point of view ?

17:01 Apr 17, 2011 

I think it's actually the other way round: there is a specific, specialist distinction made between 'interception'and 'interdiction' — as is made clear by the definitins Stéphanie has posted in her answer below.

There is nothing "wrong" with the way these terms are used in AE, it's just that it doesn't happen to have a one-to-one mapping with German.

16:41 Apr 17, 2011 

Maybe, the author wanted to say "were intercepted" rather than interdicted. Strictly speaking, interdiction corresponds to prohibition, whereas interception means seizure (60 per cent of recent drug shipments were intercepted (abgefangen in German). It suffices to think of Carl Spitzweg´s painting "the intercepted love letter" (der abgefangene Liebesbrier) to demonstrate the different meaning of these words. But maybe, in AE there is a tendency not to have regard to this difference.