[Grovenet] Was it Devastated or merely Decimated?

Wed Feb 7 20:39:02 PST 2007

I don't know about "correct," but my guess would be that it has become popular 
for the same reason some people can't stand to use plain Anglo-Saxon words 
when they can seem to be more erudite by using a compounded conglomeration of 
two-bit (pre-inflation) words. Or as one writer puts it: 'A related 
affectation is to pronounce English “-ses” plurals “-sees”, as if they were 
derived from Greek, viz., “processees”, “premisees”. Presumably Greek plural 
endings, being associated with mathematics and science, confer a certain 
authority on the speaker.' (http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=873). And if 
you Google "processees," you'll even find it "in print." But I like this one 
most: http://scamper.org/blog/archives/2003/08/20/language_creeps.html

Other words that grate on me are "access" and "interface" used as verbs, not 
to mention "Google," but let's not go there.

On Wednesday 07 February 2007 15:19, Carol Morgan wrote:
> Exactly, I was after whether any of you could tell why this is
> 'incorrect'--at least if correctness other than majority usage can be
> determined.  Language changes because eventually everyone starts doing
> something differently than it was done in the past.  Sometimes along the
> way in this process there is a question as to whether the new way or the
> old way is preferrable.  This is one of the more unusual cases where it is
> actually easy to determine the more/less correct pronunciation, and it is
> not the one that is popular in use.
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> Received: 12:48 AM PST, 02/06/2007
> From: Allen Warren <osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Was it Devastated or merely Decimated?
>
>
> I usually, as in 99% of the time, hear processes pronounced as
> "processeez". I really can't remember the last time I heard it pronounced
> any other way.
>
> Allen Warren
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Carol Morgan <camorgan at stanfordalumni.org>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 5, 2007 6:41:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Was it Devastated or merely Decimated?
>
>
> I wasn't exactly after what the dictionary says, because eventually they
> will capitulate to anything based on a majority rules consensus, and seeing
> as how language ultimately changes in usage, it is tautological for that to
> be the sole basis of the pronouncement of correctness for those who wish to
> pronounce language correct. In the case of the pronunciation of processes,
> I was trying to see if any of you can tell what is going on with the
> popular pronunciation of the plural of the word process, which just by
> reasoning it through, can be proven 'wrong' if there is really any such
> thing. I am not a prescriptive grammarian, rather linguists don't believe
> in that kind of language shoulds/shouldn'ts. Those that do, however, should
> probably not look to the dictionary, because as I said before it ultimately
> comes down on the side of usage when it becomes a losing battle to do
> otherwise.
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> Received: 04:44 PM PST, 02/05/2007
> From: "Ron D'Eau Claire" <rondec at easystreet.com>
> To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Was it Devastated or merely Decimated?
>
>
> Sorry about that. Grovenet is unique among all the places where I send
> e-mail in that it won't accept standard HTML code from me! I exchange HTML
> mail including formatting and images with dozens of people every day in my
> work; thousands of messages to hundreds of people every year. Not a signal
> problem. But no luck with Grovenet for reasons we've never uncovered!
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Ron D'Eau Claire
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 12:44 PM
> To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Was it Devastated or merely Decimated?
>
>
> My dictionary gives all three pronunciations as acceptable: pr*s**s**z,
> pro*s*s*-, pr*s**-s*z*,
>
> But, then, the dictionaries sometimes change without consulting we who
> simply use the things <G>
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Carol Morgan
> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 6:40 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Was it Devastated or merely Decimated?
>
>
>
> It is interesting to me that people's use of things sounding wrong or
> dissonant as you say actually sometimes results in incorrect usage. I think
> some of the verbal gymnastics people try to avoid ending with a preposition
> (not exactly the same thing as dangling that preposition, though I will
> spare you all) are quite comical and make people come across as quite
> stuffy. Personally, it is something up with which I will not put!
>
> And sometimes the choice is between sounding wrong and actually being
> wrong. For example, it has resulted in the 'between you and I' monstrosity
> that you almost have to say if you don't want the majority of your audience
> to think you are speaking incorrectly.
>
> One interesting one, how would you pronounce the final vowel in the plural
> of process? With an 'ee' like in please? Be careful...
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> Received: 09:38 AM PST, 01/27/2007
> From: "Ron D'Eau Claire" <rondec at easystreet.com>
> To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Was it Devastated or merely Decimated?
>
>
> Guilty as charged, Bud! I'd use the excuse that these messages are really a
> version of "spoken" English, but I must confess that a dangling "on"
> doesn't
>
> grate on me like a dangling "at" (e.g. "Where are you at?")
>
> So I have no excuse.
>
> I'm not trying to turn the tide of public opinion, but simply trying to
> come
>
> to grips with the reality that my nicely ordered world keeps changing
> (Grrrr...) Sometimes I feel decimated to the point of being devastated (or
> was that the other way around?)
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Meredith Bliss
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:28 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Was it Devastated or merely Decimated?
>
>
> Yes, I think usage 3b is the most common now days, do you really find that
> irritating? You'd rather use the seemingly archaic definition of reduce by
> one in ten?
>
> And my apologies for not being more specific, I was referring to your use
> of
>
>
> the dangling preposition "on" in "one we can weigh in on." Strunk & White
> say
> that "years ago, students were warned not to end a sentence in a
> preposition ...." Perhaps that was when "decimate" was only used to mean
> "reduce by one in ten." Now Strunk & White urge us to use our ear, but it
> still sounds dissonant to me. Sorry.
>
> On Friday 26 January 2007 21:21, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
> > I use the references my editors use, such as the Merriam-Webster or
> > the American Heritage Dictionary or which defines decimate both ways,
> > as I noted.
> >
> > For example M-W says:
> >
> > 1 : to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
> > 2 : to exact a tax of 10 percent from <poor as a decimated Cavalier --
> > John
> > Dryden>
> > 3 a : to reduce drastically especially in number <cholera decimated
> > the
> > population> b : to cause great destruction or harm to <firebombs
> > population> decimated
> > the city> <an industry decimated by recession>
> >
> > The OED does show the change in usage, defining decimate as "1 kill
> > or destroy a large proportion of. 2 drastically reduce the strength
> > of"
> >
> > My point is that the meaning is being changed by common usage from "to
> > reduce by 1/10th" to "destroy". My example is what was well understood
> > only a few years ago, but which is now becoming the less common usage.
> > Your comments and my short-form OED seem to support that change. With
> > the OED taking the conservative "middle ground" of current usage, as
> > is usual. I haven't had an editor who used and OED one in many years.
> > The OED seems to be the choice of academicians and not the ordinary
> > working folk <G>.
> >
> > "weigh in": to balance in the mind in order to make a choice.
> >
> > Ron D'Eau Claire
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]
> > On Behalf Of Meredith Bliss
> > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 8:36 PM
> > To: Forest Grove local interests list
> > Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Was it Devastated or merely Decimated?
> >
> >
> > I beg to differ, Ron, as usual. Most sources do indeed reference the
> > Roman army as the source of the meaning, "to reduce by one tenth," but
> > the normal extension of that usage in modern times has been to refer
> > to a more general drastic reduction in numbers, usually of people. I
> > doubt the monetary usage to which you refer is very common ;-) Nor is
> > the strict interpretation to which you cling. I really do need to get
> > a copy of the OED ...
> >
> > On the other hand, "devastate" is normally used to refer to
> > non-numeric effects, i.e., you can decimate a group by killing many of
> > its members, or you can devastate them by destroying their possessions
> > ....
> >
> > And speaking of usage ... "weigh in on" ... really?
> >
> > On Friday 26 January 2007 15:47, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
> > > Okay, ladies and gents, here's one we can weigh in on without
> > > getting too "hot under the collar" (I hope).
> > >
> > > I'm a writer. I mess with words every day. So the deliberate misuse
> > > of words is, to me, like the avid bicycler who gets cut off by a
> > > careless automobile driver. It's unnerving and irritating.
> > >
> > > I'm hearing "decimated" used more and more in a context that
> > > suggests the writer meant something was "utterly destroyed". That
> > > is, it's used as a synonym for "devastated".
> > >
> > > Of course, they do *not* mean anything like the same thing.
> > > "Decimate" means to reduce by 1/10th!(1)
> > >
> > > If I 'decimate' a $10 bill, I have $9 left.
> > >
> > > If I 'devastate' or 'destroy' a $10 bill, I don't have anything
> > > left.
> > >
> > > However, the illiterati are so pervasive they seem to be changing
> > > the meaning of decimate! Even some dictionaries now give both
> > > contradictory meanings ("to reduce by 1/10" and "to destroy").
> > >
> > > Okay, so what other abuses and misuses of words grate on you folks
> > > out there? Got one? Sound off! We can agonize or argue about it
> > > without fear of causing a national revolt or destroying the
> > > environment! (Well, maybe putting a dent our linguistic environment,
> > > but the polluters have already done that with their use of words
> > > like decimate).
> > >
> > >
> > > Ron D'Eau Claire
> > >
> > >
> > > (1) The story goes that 'decimate' was invented in ancient Rome as a
> > > disciplinary technique for soldiers. If a group failed to perform as
> > > desired, one in ten would be chosen at random for punishment. That
> > > would be "decimating" the troop. One legend says that in extreme
> > > cases the soldiers would be lined up at the edge of a cliff. The
> > > commander would walk along the line counting, 1...2...3...4...5 and
> > > when he reached 10 that soldier was pushed to his death. This went
> > > on for the total length of the troop standing there. It made the
> > > punishment personal and obvious without too seriously reducing the
> > > strength of the troop.
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > GroveNet mailing list
> > > GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet

-- 
----------------------------------------
Just happy to be here, but speaking 
only for myself!
Meredith Bliss --- www.rdrop.com/~mbliss
----------------------------------------