[Grovenet] Was it Devastated or merely Decimated?
Meredith Bliss
mbliss at agora.rdrop.com
Wed Feb 7 21:59:58 PST 2007
NYC is what I meant, and I certainly would not want to be devastating!
On Wednesday 07 February 2007 21:25, Ed Davie wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
----------------------------------------
More information about the GroveNet
mailing list