misuse of "decimated"

[ForresterModern]

Decimated originated from the latin for use way back in the Roman legions, who absorbed into their ranks the crestfallen soldiers of their conquered regions. Understandably this often made for some unruly, less than optimally loyal soldiers in the ranks. As punishment for times of general disobedience (refusing to attack when ordered to, for instance) they would be lined up and "decimated"--counted off by ten and then every tenth man would be punished by their Roman leaders, and if that punishment was harsh, such as death, their ranks would be "decimated" (diminished by one tenth or 10%) by their own disciplinary measures. Hence the origin of the use of the word relating to military and battle terminology was actually non-battle related, rather self inflicted on a grand scale.

The term (a 10% reduction) has been exaggerated through the centuries, mostly in the last one or two, to come to mean something entirely different---that of near total annihilation or obliteration---probably because those using the term thought it sounded more profound than those other terms, and because they may not have been able to spell those more appropriate terms as well. Annihilation is a far more ominous degree and extent of loss, and near total would be devastating. Obliteration is, well, essentially complete destruction, the ultimate total loss. Either would be far worse in battle than simply being "decimated" (reduced by 10%), which by more modern warfare standards (at least up until the year 2000 or so) would not be seen as necessarily an exceptional loss, rather more expected and acceptable "casualties of war" in the era of hand to hand or close quarters warfare (where opponents could "see the whites of their eyes" before engaging, not the unmanned drone strike, massive air armaments delivered from 10,000 feet, cruise missile, or even artillery dominated more distant types of engagements seen in latter half of the last century).

[OC Richard]

The current word of the day is simular (instead of similar).

One of my son's teachers, a highly educated woman (I think she had a Doctorate in Education) would say that. I think it's by false analogy with "simulate".

Here we have a city called Westminster. Nearly everybody here, including people born and raised there, call it Westminister. It's like "Bridegroom" where a word that sounds unfamiliar and strange, used in a compound, has a familiar word substituted for it. No-one here, evidently, has ever heard the word "minster".

On the grammar side of things, of course we Americans say "gotten" in "have gotten" but I also hear "have boughten" fairly often and "have satten" a few times. There's a saying in linguistics "Native Speakers don't make mistakes" but things like that make one wonder.

[Chip]

I guess we can play battling dictionaries...

OED

1 In a literal manner or sense; exactly:
the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the roundabout
tiramisu, literally translated ‘pull-me-up’

1.1 informal Used for emphasis while not being literally true:
I have received literally thousands of letters


Usage

In its standard use literally means ‘in a literal sense, as opposed to a non-literal or exaggerated sense’, as for example in I told him I never wanted to see him again, but I didn’t expect him to take it literally. In recent years an extended use of literally (and also literal) has become very common, where literally (or literal) is used deliberately in non-literal contexts, for added effect, as in they bought the car and literally ran it into the ground. This use can lead to unintentional humorous effects ( we were literally killing ourselves laughing) and is not acceptable in formal contexts, though it is widespread.

[DWFII]

I love these kinds of discussions. Sometimes word origins and their evolution through the centuries will surprise you.

I read the Grammarphobia blog on nearly a daily basis--they are some of the most knowledgeable and articulate analysts of the English language (both sides of the pond) I've ever encountered.

Here's their breakdown of the word "decimate."

And here is a somewhat short but insightful entry regarding "literally."

Another word that is misused so often that we literally have lost sight of what it means, is "traditional" or more to the point, "tradition." A practice, custom or belief has to be passed down from one generation to another to be a "tradition" or "traditional." Because you started cooking the Thanksgiving turkey in hot oil two years ago doesn't make it a "tradition."

And here's another I thought was worth bookmarking.

[slothead]

Thanks DWFII for your links to Grammarphobia. I think I will start reading it. And I will also research their background so I will know if I can trust what they write.

I love to speculate on the origins or words and sayings and don't really have any specific background to do so, but it's still fun. For instance, ignoring the political implications (and remember that this is just a joke), I would maintain that the word 'hilarious' comes from Hillary Clinton, and should be spelled 'hillarious'.

And the word 'facetious' should be spelled 'fecesious' (I'll let you decide why so I won't have to potentially break any forum rules).

[tripleblessed]

Forrester, a treat to see you back. That said, and truly so, I was tickled to read of fallen soldiers becoming part of the victor's army.

Decimated originated from the latin for use way back in the Roman legions, who absorbed into their ranks the fallen soldiers of their conquered regions. Understandably this often made for some unruly, less than optimally loyal soldiers in the ranks.

I'd get pretty unruly myself if, after slogging through the battle I then was expected to carry the dead around on the march.
Your intent was clear, the typing mistake amusing. Puts me in mind of the riddle about the plane crash west of the Mississippi carrying folk from the East: where did they bury the survivors?

[Tarheel]

Tripleblessed, we don't bury all the survivors of plane crashes in western Mississippi. Some folks require autopsies to determine the manner of death.
I will bring my authoritative text to the table when confronting "lack-a-what" (lackadaisical) language abusers. Here is the proof there is such a book.

[tripleblessed]

On the grammar side of things, of course we Americans say "gotten" in "have gotten" but I also hear "have boughten" fairly often and "have satten" a few times.

Richard, I too, was amused by this usage as a child, but when I discovered that Appalachian usage in grammar and song
was so directly connected to Elizabethan English it was used to correct versions of Child ballads, I got curious. It appears
in England as well, at least as early as the first half of the 18th century, and in Coleridge, and as well in John Prine. Still
rare and a bit amusing, but it reminds me of my youth. Satten, on the other hand......

[tripleblessed]

Tripleblessed, we don't bury all the survivors of plane crashes in western Mississippi.

A relief to find that out. Should I ever find myself in that situation, is there a form required to avoid the burial?

[Chip]

And here's another I thought was worth bookmarking.

This distinction is one that mystifies me at times. I have no problem self-identifying as ignorant; there are countless areas of knowledge of which I am ignorant, but willing and eager to learn. Yet some folk who do not understand the definition of ignorance take great offense at the label.

Another pet-peeve of mine is 'fact'. As any first year law school student can tell you, facts are constructs based upon evidence. They can be proven, unproven, or dis-proven, but the are neither true nor untrue. Their proof is entirely up to the audience to whom presented (in law this is commonly a jury, also known as the 'fact finder'), and limited in utility to the scope in which they are constructed.

A 'scientific fact' in neither true nor untrue. It simply supports the hypothesis in which it is presented. Truth, as we commonly conceive it, is (outside of a Rule #5 violation) unattainable. So, in a scientific context, it is entirely appropriate to dismiss facts that do not support a given theory and construct new facts (based upon the available evidence) to support the theory.