Posted on 05/30/2002 1:21:03 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:06:37 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Actually, doesn't "decimate" mean to reduce TO 1/10th of its original? To reduce something by 1/10th leaves 90% of it still there. In other words, if an army was "decimated," it would mean that only 10% of the original fighting force was still breathing.
You're right, though - some of our best threads are on what SOME Freepers would call "th' nitpicky non-issues."
Back in my early days of radio, I had a caller on the air who wanted me to "detonate" a record for him. I said, "Sure," and played the sound of an explosion. He MEANT "dedicate" a record.
Michael
No. I believe it started out as a punishment the Roman officers gave to their own army, to kill one out of every ten men at random.
I am an Iowan. Unfortunately, I will be surprised if Harkin is defeated. The NEA and AFSCME always throw everything they have into his election efforts. The Republicans simply have no comparable organizations to defeat him. Harkin is a real nasty guy as well as a typical demoliar, and I hate to have to say it, but I can't see him losing.
Interesting! So our crack research team of orangutans typed "decimate" into dictionary.com, and the following appeared:
"Usage Note: Decimate originally referred to the killing of every tenth person, a punishment used in the Roman army for mutinous legions. Today this meaning is commonly extended to include the killing of any large proportion of a group. Sixty-six percent of the Usage Panel accepts this extension in the sentence The Jewish population of Germany was decimated by the war, even though it is common knowledge that the number of Jews killed was much greater than a tenth of the original population. However, when the meaning is further extended to include large-scale destruction other than killing, as in The supply of fresh produce was decimated by the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, only 26 percent of the Panel accepts the usage."
Bottom line is that your definition of reducing the force by 10% is correct. At least in terms of origin. However, I would hasten NOT to use "decimation" to describe anything other than a gross, wholesale, lopsided, overwhelming victory or savaging of the enemy. To me, decimate is an extremely powerful word - and 10% reduction is not.
So I'll tend to use the word as the dictionary.com panel accepts - rather than its more precise meaning UNLESS there is an over-riding reason to use the precise terminology.
Which brings up the point - what term would describe such utter defeat as would be suffered by an army in which only 10 percent of its original force remains? Annihilation doesn't work, because it means that ALL of the opposition was wiped out.
Anyone?
Michael
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.