[Grovenet] Was it Devastated or merely Decimated?

Wed Feb 7 21:12:05 PST 2007

Well, of course we do, but it's more fun to argue about the other things ;-)

I once knew someone who could argue endlessly about points on which we agreed 
completely, but he was from New York, what can you expect!

On Wednesday 07 February 2007 21:01, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
> 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
----------------------------------------