4 ms·

Unrelated. The article uses the word "decimated". It seems to me a lot of people misinterpret the meaning of this word. It does not mean "kill 90%", but "kill o

Unrelated. The article uses the word "decimated". It seems to me a lot of people misinterpret the meaning of this word. It does not mean "kill 90%", but "kill on in every 10" aka 10%.

rcxdude 2y ago
Meanings shift with time. The original meant that (doled out as a very harsh collective punishment by the Romans: groups of 10 would draw straws and be forced to kill the one who draw the short straw). Now it's meanining is more along the lines of 'severely reduced', where how much is 'severely' depends on the context.
- NilMostChill 2y ago
  indeed, this particular one though has the added complication of having part of it's meaning contained in the composition of the word. It's usage is still changing, obviously , but for me it's a more difficult transition because of the 'deci'
  - saghm 2y ago
    I think this one is already past the past the inflection point, to be honest. I see people using the word with the new meaning far more than the old one; hell, I see people complaining about how the word is used more than I see it used for the original meaning. My take is that the original meaning is so narrow that it's almost inevitable that any more broad usage that appeared would overtake it to the point of drowning out the original.
- ianburrell 2y ago
  Meanings shift quickly. Decimate was first introduced circa 1600 from Latin to mean "destroy every tenth". By 1660, it started to mean "destroy large number".
  - indoordin0saur 2y ago
    The word is from 'decimatio' which appears in original Roman histories written well before 1600.
andrewl 2y ago
I would say it's more that they don't know the meaning of decimated. Or they don't know the original meaning of the word. Now when someone writes that a population was decimated they probably just mean it was massively reduced. I have also seen articles saying a sports team decimated their opponent, which in that context means the winning team won by a large margin.
globnomulous 2y ago
Semi-related: very few people, even capable professional writers, use "disinterested" correctly.
- argiopetech 2y ago
  Can you provide an example? I'm not sure how one would use it improperly...
  - andrewl 2y ago
    The short answer is that disinterested means unbiased, having no conflicts of interest, impartial. So a judge in a court should be disinterested, but not uninterested.
  - WaltPurvis 2y ago
    It is often erroneously used when the writer means uninterested.
  - FeteCommuniste 2y ago
    Using "disinterested" to mean "uninterested" has become more common over the past few decades, rather than using it in the older sense of "having no stake in the outcome, having no bias or partiality with respect to a conflict." An example would be saying that someone was "disinterested" in what was happening on TV, or in music that was playing.
- saghm 2y ago
  Using a word "correctly" isn't actually something everyone agrees on, though. As much as certain usages rub me the wrong way, it's hard for me not to fall on the side of descriptivism and that the issue is with my reaction rather than other people; words are all just made up sounds (and written symbols, of course) that we use to communicate, after all, and if enough people use them in a certain way, it doesn't really make sense to me that there would be some inherent meaning that overrides that. Language evolving isn't a new thing, and once a meaning reaches enough mindshare, there's no turning back.
furyofantares 2y ago
Decimated is from Latin decimātiō, where a large group of your army would be split into groups of 10, each group would draw straws, and the shortest straw would be stoned to death by the other 9. A completely brutal form of military punishment for capital offenses such as cowardice. It is not really adequately captured by reducing it to "kill one in every 10". Wikipedia says it may be ahistorical though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(punishment) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(punishment) It also notes "In modern English, the word is used most commonly not to mean a destruction of a tenth but rather annihilation."
hyperbolablabla 2y ago
This is like saying people misinterpret the word "awful" or "literally"
- gweinberg 2y ago
  There are good reasons to object to using "literally" as a meaningless filler word instead of, say, to mean "this sounds like hyperbole but it isn't". First, there are times when you need to indicate "this sounds like hyperbole but it isn't", and there really isn't a great alternative. Second, there's no point to having a meaningless filler word. If a sentence means exactly the same thing with and without the "literally", why is it there?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

Unrelated. The article uses the word "decimated". It seems to me a lot of people misinterpret the meaning of this word. It does not mean "kill 90%", but "kill on in every 10" aka 10%.

rcxdude 2y ago

Meanings shift with time. The original meant that (doled out as a very harsh collective punishment by the Romans: groups of 10 would draw straws and be forced to kill the one who draw the short straw). Now it's meanining is more along the lines of 'severely reduced', where how much is 'severely' depends on the context.

NilMostChill 2y ago
indeed, this particular one though has the added complication of having part of it's meaning contained in the composition of the word. It's usage is still changing, obviously , but for me it's a more difficult transition because of the 'deci'
- saghm 2y ago
  I think this one is already past the past the inflection point, to be honest. I see people using the word with the new meaning far more than the old one; hell, I see people complaining about how the word is used more than I see it used for the original meaning. My take is that the original meaning is so narrow that it's almost inevitable that any more broad usage that appeared would overtake it to the point of drowning out the original.
ianburrell 2y ago
Meanings shift quickly. Decimate was first introduced circa 1600 from Latin to mean "destroy every tenth". By 1660, it started to mean "destroy large number".
- indoordin0saur 2y ago
  The word is from 'decimatio' which appears in original Roman histories written well before 1600.

andrewl 2y ago

I would say it's more that they don't know the meaning of decimated. Or they don't know the original meaning of the word. Now when someone writes that a population was decimated they probably just mean it was massively reduced. I have also seen articles saying a sports team decimated their opponent, which in that context means the winning team won by a large margin.

globnomulous 2y ago

Semi-related: very few people, even capable professional writers, use "disinterested" correctly.

argiopetech 2y ago
Can you provide an example? I'm not sure how one would use it improperly...
- andrewl 2y ago
  The short answer is that disinterested means unbiased, having no conflicts of interest, impartial. So a judge in a court should be disinterested, but not uninterested.
- WaltPurvis 2y ago
  It is often erroneously used when the writer means uninterested.
- FeteCommuniste 2y ago
  Using "disinterested" to mean "uninterested" has become more common over the past few decades, rather than using it in the older sense of "having no stake in the outcome, having no bias or partiality with respect to a conflict." An example would be saying that someone was "disinterested" in what was happening on TV, or in music that was playing.
saghm 2y ago
Using a word "correctly" isn't actually something everyone agrees on, though. As much as certain usages rub me the wrong way, it's hard for me not to fall on the side of descriptivism and that the issue is with my reaction rather than other people; words are all just made up sounds (and written symbols, of course) that we use to communicate, after all, and if enough people use them in a certain way, it doesn't really make sense to me that there would be some inherent meaning that overrides that. Language evolving isn't a new thing, and once a meaning reaches enough mindshare, there's no turning back.

furyofantares 2y ago

Decimated is from Latin decimātiō, where a large group of your army would be split into groups of 10, each group would draw straws, and the shortest straw would be stoned to death by the other 9. A completely brutal form of military punishment for capital offenses such as cowardice. It is not really adequately captured by reducing it to "kill one in every 10". Wikipedia says it may be ahistorical though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(punishment) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(punishment) It also notes "In modern English, the word is used most commonly not to mean a destruction of a tenth but rather annihilation."

hyperbolablabla 2y ago

This is like saying people misinterpret the word "awful" or "literally"

gweinberg 2y ago
There are good reasons to object to using "literally" as a meaningless filler word instead of, say, to mean "this sounds like hyperbole but it isn't". First, there are times when you need to indicate "this sounds like hyperbole but it isn't", and there really isn't a great alternative. Second, there's no point to having a meaningless filler word. If a sentence means exactly the same thing with and without the "literally", why is it there?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]