[Grovenet] Was it Devastated or merely Decimated?

Wed Feb 7 21:01:55 PST 2007

See, we do agree on some things! 

I also dislike that affectation of adding an "e" to some names, such as
Whale Pointe" or, closer to home, "Olde Town". 

Aaargh! 

Ron D'Eau Claire 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Meredith Bliss
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 8:39 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Was it Devastated or merely Decimated?

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
----------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet