About a week ago there was a wonderful thread here that included much discussion (some of it heated) on the use of “decimate” that I was reckless enough to join in on. So of course I might as well do so again.
One of the things I realized later is if one sticks to strict, exactly-literal definition of the word it would essentially have to die out due to lack of usage. After all, if you’re in charge of a Roman legion you do in fact have the power to decide you’re going to kill every tenth soldier in your troop. But pretty much nobody can do that today - and those who could (like bonehead Jihadists) are unlikely to be satisfied with homicide at the 10% level.
And if you’re going to stick to a strict ‘one-in-ten’ tally, how often is that likely to happen as a matter of course? If some nut shoots up a movie theater, and kills 9 people out of 101, can we say he decimated the audience? If you’re using “decimate” in the strict sense, are you allowed to round off? Can anybody think of any situation in the past century or two in which exactly one-tenth of an assemblage was killed?
One of the things I realized later is if one sticks to strict, exactly-literal definition of the word it would essentially have to die out due to lack of usage.
...
Very true. Nobody would use “decimate” anymore.