[IronJack]

You're assuming that any dictionary author has the authority to ascribe meaning to any given word. Words have meaning not because some single authority says they do, but because the users agree on that meaning. And dictionaries don't create meanings; they simply document them.

Samuel Johnson could define "liberal" as "enlightened," but if we all know it means "vacuous and sophomorically idealistic," then Doctor Johnson's meaning is at best irrelevant, a mere parlor exercise.

ALL dictionaries are therefore "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive" (your terms). And it is no more valid for me to accept your arbitrary devotion to obsolescence than it is for me to let the Left define my terms for me.

I KNOW the meaning I intended when I used the word "decimate." That usage was perfectly in keeping with modern understanding, so my use of it communicated exactly what I wanted it to. That is the value of words. They are not pretty objects to sit on a mantel gathering cobwebs; they are meant to be taken down and used. Sometimes in their use, they acquire a scratch or two. And some just plain wear out. Others wear down but are then refinished and served up anew.

[IronJack]

By the way, you might want to consult any credible English textbook and scan the section dealing with "Run-On Sentences."

[ThanhPhero]

I won't further argue with you. It is fruitless to argue with someone whose words are capriciously transmorphic.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Complaining about the modern use of the word decimate is an odd and all too common pastime around here. I'm sure none of the complainers would bat an eyelash at the way the use of words like "logo", short for logotype, or "font" have changed and are now commonly accepted.