[Grovenet] Was it Devastated or merely Decimated?
Ed Davie
edavie at verizon.net
Wed Feb 7 21:25:15 PST 2007
When you say New York, you have to differentiate
between upstate and downstate!
Very important. And more so if you are talking
about "word usage".
Otherwise you insult me. Just so you will know,
I'm from upstate.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Meredith Bliss
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Was it Devastated or
merely Decimated?
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
----------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
More information about the GroveNet
mailing list