Posted on 07/09/2015 11:40:57 AM PDT by pabianice
Most people have a linguistic pet peeve or two, a useful complaint about language that they can sound off about to show other people that they know how to wield the English language. Most of these peeves tend to be rather irrational, a quality which should in no way diminish the enjoyment of the complainer. A classic example of this is the word decimate.
The complaint about the word typically centers on the fact that decimate is used improperly to refer to ‘destroying a large portion of something’, when the ‘true’ meaning of the word is ‘to put to death (or punish) one of every ten’.
There are several problems with this complaint. The first, and most obvious, is that language has an ineluctable desire to change, and there are almost no words in English which have been around for more than a few hundred years without taking on new meanings, changing their old ones, or coming to simultaneously mean one thing and the opposite (a type of word known as a contronym).
“My pet peeve: improper use of “that” instead of “who”. Example:
He was the man that robbed the store.”
Again FWIW, this explains it the way I learned it 35+ years ago....
It is entirely acceptable to write either the man that wanted to talk to you, or the man who wanted to talk to you (3). [emphasis added] - See more at: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/who-versus-that#sthash.PJOO46YJ.dpuf
Source:
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/who-versus-that
Only, is that your only pet peeve?
I guess two of something would be almost unique.
You have 100 cars. 90 of them are factory colors. 9 of them are painted in different unique fluorescent colors, one of them is painted like the Batmobile. That one is very unique.
It means that among its peers, all of which are unique, one stands out.
Decimate is based upon a dead white man’s language, Latin. Therefore why should people today know what it means? And remember, words today mean whatever we want them to mean. And my definition can be the exact opposite of yours and “that’s ok because it’s my definition and my reality.”
Here’s a fun one I’ve never quite got my head around.
“The point is moot” used as a conversation ender, when the word means “debatable”.
So let’s keep debating!
Unless you’re one of the 10%, of course.
Liberals have decimated the English language.
For many decades, a ‘conservative’ political party in Canada was known as the ‘Progressive Conservative Party’ (PCs). THAT name was a pet peeve of mine, that made as much sense as being an ‘agnostic Christian’ (something the United Church of Canada’s General Council seem adept at doing).
Fifteen years ago, the Reform Party of Canada, a more conservative splinter from the PCs, merged with the PCs, creating the ‘Conservative Party of Canada’. At least it is more ‘conservative’ than the old PC Party. Some ‘Red Tories’, or left leaning PCs moved to the Liberal or New Democratic Parties.
True, though their aberrant affect often exacerbates evil effects on one’s digestion.
It’s the #1 definition, because it is the most common usage nowadays.
Be thankful that the “10 percent” definition isn’t tagged with a parenthetical “(archaic)” yet.
The french word manteau means coat,porte meaning to carry, so porte manteau means a clothes carrier...literally a leather trunk. There are many french words which have an opposite meaning in English and are called “faux amis,” or “False Friends.” One must be very very careful with some of them in order not to become a red-faced idiot in genteel company.
which pretty much confirms what I was saying.
The word does make sense though, in that a saddle bag is just two separate bags that have been linked together, as portmanteaus are generally two words that have been linked together.
Ah but one must be careful where( in which country) one uses a certain word. i.e. inquire or enquire, America or England.
Hilarious. This is my husband’s ONE irritation. Liking military and Roman history, he always cringes.
I explain that language goes through creep, change, which official term in linguistics I forget.
Meanwhile, he doesn’t mind all the PAese bad grammar including “grass needs cut” and “boy needs spanked”.
Well, that is usually spoken in a sarcastic tone, which makes the meaning equivalent, like I might say “Yeah, I really give a ****”, when I obviously do not.
The Italian army in WWI also resorted to decimation as a disciplinary tactic.
“The Italian army in WWI also resorted to decimation as a disciplinary tactic.”
Reportedly (vs. purportedly), not exactly.
Six percent of Italian soldiers under his leadership faced a disciplinary charge during the war and 61 percent of them were found guilty. About 750 were executed, the highest number in any army in World War I. Claims have been made that he also reintroduced the ancient Roman practice of decimation—the killing of every tenth man—for units which failed to perform in battle. However, the military historian John Keegan records that his “judicial savagery” took the form of the summary executions of individual stragglers rather than the formalized winnowing of entire detachments.”
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Cadorna
No, I gots a couple more, irregardless..........................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.