Quote:
Originally Posted by bhartman36
That's true, but it doesn't really address the nature of my objection regarding "decimate".
1) The original definition of "decimate" is still recognized as standard (see Merriam-Webster online, for example).
2) Using "decimate" in alternate ways debases the language, because it uses a very precise word (for which we have no alternate) in a very sloppy, imprecise way.
(I have the same issue with the words "ironic" and "tragedy", but that's probably a debate for another day.  ) |
I don't doubt that there are books out there that use decimate (and other words) incorrectly, but there are situations where decimate can be used and be indirectly related to complete destruction. For example armies can be decimated (reduced drastically in number, without being completely destroyed) and yet their ability to retaliate or defend can be completely destroyed as a result. In such a case as this the use of decimate may be considered strictly correct. (I am not trying to defend truly incorrect use, just trying to highlight that sometimes the accuracy or relevance of a meaning can be obscured.)
I like the decimate example because it shows how words do change over time. According to both Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com the word decimate also has (had) a mean of to take one tenth from (nothing about killing or destroying) - dictionary.com marks that definition as obsolete, both mark it as the origin of the word. We then move on to killing one in ten, and eventually only to a great proportion or "to reduce drastically especially in number". So the word has moved on quite a way from where it started, these things happen whether we approve of them or not.