Talk:decimate

When everyone misuses a word the same way, it's not misuse. Usage changes. We may as well say that scale is being misused in this entry to refer to size and not to a ladder. I have my own pet peeves -- I prefer to say in a moment when many would say momentarily, but the new usage appears to be gaining ground steadily. -dmh 03:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

On the face of it a fair point, but who are "everyone"? I assume you mean a large number of people, or even perhaps you assume the majority. I too have noticed that many people use the phrase "to be pacific" when they mean "to be specific" but this lazy use of language has not yet made it a new alternative meaning for pacific. Perhaps the reason is that, unlike decimate it has not made it to print. Yet should we be so ignorant to believe that if it is printed is carriies more weight? Your example of in a moment is acceptable as it is an idiom rather than a total perversion of meaining. I can at least vouch for many well read people who wince at the use of decimate incorrectly and being a pedantic old fart I agree with them. However, what really irritates me is the use of "haitch" for the letter aitch. One strange argument I met was that it should start with the same sound as the letter, well I suppose that means "wubble-ewe" comes after V? :) Dainamo 22:35, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Using your example as an example, this might be a UK/US English issue. In British English, 'momentarily' means 'for a moment', not 'in a moment". This is why British passengers look disconcerted when American pilots say they will be taking off momentarily, when the passengers had been planning quite a long flight. Back on the subject of 'decimate', the original Roman usage is more common in the UK than in the US, especially in the sense of to deliver a severe, but essentially symbolic, punishment. I don't believe we can rush to 'obsolete' just yet. On the subject of the confusion between the meanings, I note that the quote from Adrian Goldsworthy is in the wrong section. He is using 'decimate' in the meaning of (5) To reduce severely, and says that Caesar had to be persuaded to execute only one in ten, in the sense of (1) (OsmNacht (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)) I have now made this changeOsmNacht (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

original

I don't see this mentioned so: decimate originally referred to the Roman practice of punishing a (roman) army unit, such as a legion, by killing one tenth of its men. I would say that the 'to reduce by one-tenth' meaning is not "obsolete" but "archaic"Pedant 00:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What would be the distinction? We're currently a bit weak on designations like rare, obsolete, archaic etc. I'm certainly open to suggestions. I'm favoring obsolete here in an effort to discourage use. -dmh 03:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

=================================

The following Usage notes are inappropriate and have been deleted; it has long been accepted that the function of an English _dictionary_ is to record usage, not to lay down the law on what is "correct" and "incorrect". The rest of the entry adequately documents that "reduce by one-tenth" is rarely meant.

"The definition reduce by one in ten is occasionally cited as "the correct" definition, with severely reduce considered a "misconception". While the second is doubtless based on the re-analysis that deci- refers to dividing by ten and not to eliminating a tenth, it is nonetheless the current usage, and has been for centuries. If you use decimate in the first sense in general writing, expect to be misunderstood." Dec2004

I've restored the deleted material, which was the result of several rounds of discussion. In slow motion:

The definition reduce by one in ten is occasionally cited as "the correct" definition, with severely reduce considered a "misconception".

Which seems like a perfectly good description of what people say about this term: some insist it's incorrect, etc.

While the second is doubtless based on the re-analysis that deci- refers to dividing by ten and not to eliminating a tenth,

This seems a perfectly good conjecture based on available evidence, and is marked as such.

it is nonetheless the current usage, and has been for centuries.

Also perfectly correct, descriptive, uncontroversial, and not redundant with the material on BNC.

If you use decimate in the first sense in general writing, expect to be misunderstood.

This is probably the "inappropriate" part. It doesn't take a stand on what is correct or incorrect, it merely says that the historically correct sense is likely to be misunderstood.

If you would like to take issue with any of this, please do so. But please don't summarily delete material. -dmh 06:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Citation of dictionary definition

I note that one of the cites for "reduce by one-tenth" is from a dictionary of Middle English. While this does lend plausibility to the definition, it's not a proper citation, since it's a mention, not a use. OTOH, there's precious little documentation for this sense (neither literal execution nor the more modern senses), so I'm reluctant just to delete it. Thoughts -dmh 18:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Usage concern

I agree that dictionaries record usage and are not proscriptive. HOWEVER, there are still quite a few (educated, elite) people who wince with the "misuse" of the word decimate. AS recently as 40 years ago, the majority of usage experts felt that equated the word to destroy was incorrect and one quarter STILL DO. (source NYT, Google it).

My point is NOT to say that the "misuse" is "misuse" and you should get your hands slapped. But that a significant number of readers still are taken aback by what they see as misuse of the term. This is an IMPORTANT usage note, in and of itself...just as the slowly changing usage is.

Given, this incomplete conversion, MANY editors (source: all those I've talked to) will AVOID using the "new" meaning, given that the "correctness" is at least still in question. In this sense, dictionaries are probably more cutting edge than newspapers or journals. However, a dictionary with DEEP discussion of usage (and not just hand slap fights) will note this issue in the detail that I've described.

Capisce?  ;)52.129.8.48 20:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

'commonest' as quoted by Cambridge Guide to English Usage

In the article the line reads "...nowadays the commonest use of the word in both British and American English...", does the Cambridge Guide actually quote it like that word for word? As the word "commonest" is considered to be improper, incorrect, or commonly misused by wikitonary, refer http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/commonest. Does someone have a copy of the Guide to check? Pmi25 07:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

moved new top post to bottom. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"commonest" is fairly widely used in edited works. My guess is that the proscription against it is connected to the potential confusion between commoner#Adjective and commoner#Noun. Avoiding such confusions is one of the principles of good usage. Extending the proscription to "commonest" does not have the same justification, but could be intended to make users less likely to perpetrate the other confusion. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)