Regarding the Incorrect Use of 'Decimate'

Merriam-Webster ^ | unknown | Word History

[Moonman62]

It's totally fine to use 'decimate' as a synonym for 'devastate'. This is why.

The issue that many people have with the decline and fall of the word decimate is that is once upon a time it had a very singular meaning, a meaning that is in danger of being lost forever to the vandals and barbarian hordes who are manhandling the English language through using this word to mean “to destroy a large number of.” The specific complaint is that decimate had the specific meaning, in ancient Rome, of killing one of every ten soldiers, as a form of military punishment. There are, it must be said, some problems with the argument that this is the only correct meaning today.

The first problem is that even if decimate did refer to the practice of killing one of every ten soldiers in Roman times, it did so in the service of Latin, not English. We have many words in English that are descended from Latin but which have changed their meaning in their travels. We no longer think of sinister as meaning “on the left side,” even though that was one of the word’s meanings when it existed in Latin.

Another problem with insisting that decimate should have but a single meaning is that very few words in English retain but a single meaning. An enormous percentage of the items in our vocabulary are capable of semantic multitasking. When a person uses a tricky word such as when, a, person, use, tricky, or word, all of which have multiple meanings, we use context to understand the speaker’s intent.

[null and void]

More than one spouse is spice...

[MrEdd]

Until the likely civil war.

[Hiddigeigei]

First definition of decimate from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary: "[usually passive] decimate something to kill large numbers of animals, plants or people in a particular area"
Cambridge Dictionary, First definition: "decimate verb [ T ] "to destroy large numbers of people, animals, or other creatures, or to harm something severely"
My American dictionaries (Webster New International Dictionary, Random House Webster's College Dictionary) give similar definitions.

[Bernard Marx]

A word is just a symbol for a concept. The same word can be used to symbolize several different concepts that are still somewhat similar in meaning.

The enormous flaw in that argument is that words are meant to communicate specific meanings. While a word may convey many concepts, as you say, the meanings will be different for others who maintain a different "concept" of the word. That leads to linguistic chaos. While language and word meanings do change over time, the essential factor is that a majority must agree on meanings or language becomes useless as a means of communicating ideas.

[MileHi]

We no longer think of sinister as meaning “on the left side,” even though that was one of the word’s meanings when it existed in Latin.

That's actually very appropriate today.

[SoCal Pubbie]

I cannot agree with you. Which of the 430 meanings of the word “set” listed in the Second Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary is the “correct” one?

[VMI70]

LOL...Very good!

[I want the USA back]

Meanings of words change. No one thinks of “ten” when they say “decimate.”

[Billthedrill]

I couldn’t agree more but I suspect that we’re both peeing into the breeze. The price of sloppy usage is imprecision - if we actually were going to try to communicate pulling every tenth soldier out of the ranks and snuffing him, we’d have to use other words. That we’re unlikely to have to do that except in historical discourse is some comfort if you happen to be a soldier, I suppose. I want a word that describes killing nine out of ten politicians. Because the way things are going, we may need one.

[jonascord]

Poor employment of language with the misuse of words like "decimate" and "sinister" only encourages Leftist intellectual laziness.

The Left wants Newspeak. If people do not have the vocabulary, perhaps their thought can be controlled as well.

I've got a cure for Leftism using 1984 as a guide, but they won't like it...

[FroggyTheGremlim]

Aren’t there biblical references to the left side bad and the right side good?

[dsc]

“Aren’t there biblical references to the left side bad and the right side good?”

At least one.

[Bernard Marx]

I think context goes a long way toward defining the specificity of a given word usage. I haven't looked up all 430 definitions of "set" in the OEM but, in context, I suspect the varied meanings become clear. To use your example a trapper friend "sets" traps (verb). But once in place they're called "sets" (noun).

[SoCal Pubbie]

Not all of those meanings could have arisen at the same time. So I can’t buy your idea that meanings can’t change or it’s chaos. That’s one of the beauties of the English language. It can be vague or precise of something in between.

[Bernard Marx]

That's not what I said. Meanings do change over time. As I posted earlier:

"While language and word meanings do change over time, the essential factor is that a majority must agree on meanings or language becomes useless as a means of communicating ideas."

I don't want to live in a Humpty-Dumpty world where, as he said, "When I use a word,it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

[right way right]

LOL!

Virtually.

Literally. ...more words to abuse.

[SoCal Pubbie]

I see. My mistake. Still, there’s always the case when a word or phrase is used in a new way for the first time. Shakespeare was famous for that.

[the OlLine Rebel]

OMG. This is one of my husband’s greatest pet peeves.

In his case, it seems to be mostly because of his affection for Roman history, so he is all too aware of what it was supposed to mean.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Oh, DON’T get me going!

[Svartalfiar]

When a person uses a tricky word such as when, a, person, use, tricky, or word, all of which have multiple meanings, we use context to understand the speaker’s intent.

The problem with this is that words such as 'decimate' are being misused in a way that context is useless in determining meaning. To decimate something, how do I tell the difference between one-tenth versus a bunch? The only context that will tell is by literally telling you.