# decimate



## Montesacro

Hello everybody,

The precise etymological significance of decimate is_ to kill one in ten_.
Anyway this word is usually used without reference to its “numerical meaning”: it simply suggests the killing of a large part of a group of people.

Here’s my question: 
Is the common use of “decimate” thought of as incorrect in situations of the utmost formality?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

It depends how educated the formal people are.  The common use is uneducated, and regarded by the educated as loose and ignorant.


----------



## Canolista

Thomas Tompion said:


> It depends how educated the formal people are. The common use is uneducated, and regarded by the educated as loose and ignorant.


 
Although I have to say that I have heard highly educated people use it incorrectly (I have worked with senior academics for many years!). Perhaps sadly (depending on how you view the evolution of a language - as either  inevitable or as a regrettable deterioration) the "true" meaning is being lost to all but a few.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Have these senior academics been classicists or historians or linguists, Canolista?  I can imagine some scientists being not very interested in punishments meted out to armies in classical times.


----------



## Canolista

You might be surprised what scientists are interested in outside their science, TT, , but, seriously, across all the disciplines.  What is the world coming to?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Canolista said:


> You might be surprised what scientists are interested in outside their science, TT, , but, seriously, across all the disciplines. What is the world coming to?


 
I wasn't casting aspersions on all scientists, which is why I said *some* scientists.  It's hard to imagine a student of Roman history not being sensitive to the origin of the word, which is why I thought the academic's discipline might affect his fussiness in its use.


----------



## Packard

Are there other "cimates" out there?

Tricimate
Quatracimate
Cincacimate
Hexacimate
etc.


----------



## Montesacro

Packard said:


> Are there other "cimates" out there?
> 
> Tricimate
> Quatracimate
> Cincacimate
> Hexacimate
> etc.


 
The answer is no as far as Latin (or any romance language) is concerned.

Anyway I would like to add that the original meaning is lost in the corresponding italian word as well (decimare) even if there's a very obvious hint at it (one tenth <=> un decimo) in the spelling.


----------



## Loob

Here's the OED's fourth definition for "decimate":

*a.* To kill, destroy, or remove one in every ten of. *b.* _rhetorically_ or _loosely_*.* To destroy or remove a large proportion of; to subject to severe loss, slaughter, or mortality. 

It's not easy to determine whether the examples given are literal or "rhetorical/loose": but here's one which is likely to be the latter:

*1875* LYELL _Princ. Geol._ II. III. xlii. 466 The whole animal Creation has been decimated again and again.

So the "rhetorical/loose" use appears to have been around for a while; but my own advice, Montesacro, would still be to avoid it.

EDIT: I've just seen river's post below. If I'm recommending against using "decimate" to mean "destroy a large proportion of" then I'd certainly recommend against using it to mean just "destroy"!


----------



## river

Montesacro said:


> Here’s my question:
> Is the common use of “decimate” thought of as incorrect in situations of the utmost formality?


 
Careful communicators use _decimate _to mean "destroy a large percentage of" as in "hunting decimated trumpeter swans in the 1800s, and pushed them close to extinction."  But it is commonly misunderstood to mean "destroy."


----------



## mplsray

Montesacro said:


> Hello everybody,
> 
> The precise etymological significance of decimate is_ to kill one in ten_.
> Anyway this word is usually used without reference to its “numerical meaning”: it simply suggests the killing of a large part of a group of people.
> 
> Here’s my question:
> Is the common use of “decimate” thought of as incorrect in situations of the utmost formality?


 
According to The Mavens' Word of the Day, a former Random House Web site (I quote from text I saved when the site was still active), the sense of _decimate_ meaning "to destroy a great number or proportion of"



> seems to be the _only_ way the word is used; despite the insistence of various usage critics, a real example of _decimate_ meaning "to destroy one-tenth of" has never to my knowledge been found in actual running text.


 
I would never, under any circumstances, use _decimate_ with the "kill-one-in-ten" sense: That sense is alien to English.


----------



## Loob

mplsray said:


> I would never, under any circumstances, use _decimate_ with the "kill-one-in-ten" sense: That sense is alien to English.


 
Your reference to "alien" surprises me, mplsray.

Here's an example of its use.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Maybe I am alone in thinking that this is a word which had a technical sense (as a punishment for an unsuccessful legion), which has appealed to people and come to be used in a more general, much less precise, sense. Very careful pernickety people, like many of us, like to be a bit snooty about it, but the battle was lost long ago, along with the battle of begging the question and the battle of the learning curve. Wouldn't we do better to accept it as it is generally used, to mean to detroy pretty completely, and stop fussing about its etymology?


----------



## Loob

TT, doesn't it just boil down to "Consider your audience"?

I would avoid using _decimate_ in the "large proportion" sense because that might cause some recipients to respond negatively. In practice, I would also avoid using it in the "one-in-ten" sense because it might confuse (unless the context made clear what I meant).

Fowler _(Modern English Usage, 2nd Edition) _sees the "large proportion" sense as a natural extension of the original meaning; but says that the application of _decimate_ to virtual extermination...; and anything that is expressly inconsistent with the proper sense _(A single frosty night decimated the currants by as much as 80%)_ must be avoided.

That is a neat way to sidestep the dilemma; but total avoidance, at this stage of the game, is probably safer


----------



## mplsray

Loob said:


> Your reference to "alien" surprises me, mplsray.
> 
> Here's an example of its use.



My objection remains valid. Not only did the headline writer not use _decimate_ in the "kill-one-in-ten" sense, but he was likely making a feeble joke of the sort headline writers are unfortunately prone to nowadays. And if he was not making a joke, he was making an error.

The Word Maven wrote the passage I quoted no later than 2005, so he presumably did not see the example you indicate (which is dated October 18, 2005). But his point remains valid. Those who argue in favor of the "kill-one-in-ten" sense are arguing in favor of a usage which has _never_ been standard in English--nor indeed was it ever used in the period before standard dialects came into being.

To summarize, it is not simply a matter of this sense of _decimate_ being nonstandard. I stand by what I said in my previous post--_decimate_ in the "kill-one-in-ten" sense is alien to English.


----------



## Loob

Two nations divided by a common language...

Mplsray, you've reinforced my decision to avoid "decimate" completely!


----------



## Matching Mole

I don't think there is any division of a common language here; the OED defines decimate principally as meaning to destroy a large proportion of and relegates the one in ten sense virtually to a footnote. The Online Etymological Dictionary, however, states that it _was_ used in English in the "tenth" sense: to mean the same as _tithe._ If that is true then I can't accept that this sense is "alien" to English, and not on these grounds alone: some speakers are clearly still using it in this sense today. The change in meaning is quite old, however: the same source states that this happened in the 17th c.


----------



## Loob

MM, the online version of the OED has "destroy a large proportion of" as meaning 4b:

*1.* To exact a tenth or a tithe from; to tax to the amount of one-tenth. _Obs._
*2.* To divide into tenths, divide decimally. _Obs._ 
*3.* _Milit._ To select by lot and put to death one in every ten of (a body of soldiers guilty of mutiny or other crime): a practice in the ancient Roman army, sometimes followed in later times. 
*4.* _transf._ *a.* To kill, destroy, or remove one in every ten of. *b.* _rhetorically_ or _loosely_. To destroy or remove a large proportion of; to subject to severe loss, slaughter, or mortality. 

Maybe I was over-hasty in detecting a transatlantic difference, based on mplsray's comments. I still think I'll avoid the word


----------



## Janey UK

mplsray said:


> To summarize, it is not simply a matter of this sense of _decimate_ being nonstandard. I stand by what I said in my previous post--_decimate_ in the "kill-one-in-ten" sense is alien to English.


 
I fundamentally disagree that the use of decimate in its original meaning as killing one-in-ten is *alien* to English, although I do agree with all of the above posters that to _most_ people the original meaning has been lost, and the word is _generally_ understood to mean "to kill a large proportion."

Personally, I would only ever use this word if I was talking specifically about killing one-in-ten. Maybe that makes me pedantic, but it doesn't mean I'm alienated from my fellow countrymen! I've definitely used it in everyday conversation, and have heard other classically educated people use it in the correct way.


----------



## nzfauna

This is a funny word, here are my thoughts on it.

I prefer not to use it because of the _two completely different senses it can convey_. I would certainly avoid it in formal documents, or on occasions where the meaning could be ambiguous (and let's face it, it usually is ambiguous).

To be honest, even if we all used it correctly to mean "destroy one tenth of" (or perhaps loosely as "destroy a small proportion of"), *it's still not a very useful word, is it?*


----------



## mplsray

Janey UK said:


> I fundamentally disagree that the use of decimate in its original meaning as killing one-in-ten is *alien* to English, although I do agree with all of the above posters that to _most_ people the original meaning has been lost, and the word is _generally_ understood to mean "to kill a large proportion."
> 
> Personally, I would only ever use this word if I was talking specifically about killing one-in-ten. Maybe that makes me pedantic, but it doesn't mean I'm alienated from my fellow countrymen! I've definitely used it in everyday conversation, and have heard other classically educated people use it in the correct way.


 
The OED and The Century Dictionary show the tithing meaning as the original meaning in English (while Webster's Third shows the "kill-one-in-ten" sense as being oldest). I was aware of that meaning before the current thread, having been involved in discussions of this word before, but it did not seem to be relevant to the usage dispute, which invariably centers around a question of death or destruction.

While consulting the Century just now, however, I came up with an interesting connection. While the Century (an American dictionary from 1895) shows the tithing sense as being obsolete at that time, it does not similarly mark the "kill-one-in-ten" sense. And in a surprise to me, it gives a quote which ties the "kill-one-in-ten" sense and the word "tithe" together, and also seems to be an example of the "running text" use of that meaning of _decimate._



> God sometimes _decimates_ or tithes delinquent persons, and they die for a common crime, according as God hath cast their lot in the decrees of predestination.
> _Jer. Taylor,_ Works (ed. 1835), i. 280.


 
Despite this one example, can you point us to any other use of this sense of _decimate_ (with, I stress, the meaning "to kill or destroy one in ten") in edited running text--not involved, that is, in a discussion of the word itself? (As of now, I continue to consider it to be alien to English.)


----------



## Loob

mplsray said:


> Despite this one example, can you point us to any other use of this sense of _decimate_ (with, I stress, the meaning "to kill or destroy one in ten") in edited running text--not involved, that is, in a discussion of the word itself? (As of now, I continue to consider it to be alien to English.)


 
Mplsray, I point you to my previous link, with the sense of kill/destroy/*remove *one in ten.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Here's another: (from http://bibleprobe.com/theban.html) When Maximian heard this news, he got angrier than ever. Like a savage beast, he ordered the second decimation to be carried out, intending that the remainder should be compelled to do what they hitherto refused. 

I'm not sure how an English word can be alien to English. It seems a logical impossibility.


----------



## mplsray

Loob said:


> Mplsray, I point you to ny previous link, with the sense of kill/destroy/*remove *one in ten.


 
If this is in relation to the company and its workforce, it was that very meaning which I wished to put aside, since it is not part of the usual usage discussion (just as the sense of tithing does not usually play a part in the usual discussion). I still suspect that headline writer was joking.

I object to neither the "remove-one-in-ten-sense" as widely used (it appears to be a technical term in mining, according to Webster's Third) or to the tithing sense. What I object to is people claiming that English ever had the sense of _decimate_ of "kill-one-in-ten"--if in fact it did not. I have no reason to believe that sense was ever used by anyone except when discussing the word itself.


----------



## Loob

Mplsray, decimate has definitely had the meaning "kill one in ten" (from which the figurative meaning "remove one in ten" was derived).

Here are some OED examples:

*1600*J. DYMMOK _Treat. Ireland_ (1843) 42 All..were by a martiall courte condemned to dye, which sentence was yet mittigated by the Lord Lieutenants mercy, by which they were onely decimated by lott...*1855*MACAULAY _Hist. Eng._ IV. 577 Who is to determine whether it be or be not necessary..to decimate a large body of mutineers?


----------



## mplsray

Thomas Tompion said:


> Here's another: (from http://bibleprobe.com/theban.html) When Maximian heard this news, he got angrier than ever. Like a savage beast, he ordered the second decimation to be carried out, intending that the remainder should be compelled to do what they hitherto refused.
> 
> I'm not sure how an English word can be alien to English. It seems a logical impossibility.


 
_Decimation_ is a noun. As I have said in other forums available on the Internet in a discussion of the verb _decimate,_ I would expect an English speaker to say "ordered a decimation of the group" rather than "ordered that the group be decimated" when referring to the historical punishment.

As for a word being alien to English, there is a certain word used by Robert Browning which appears in the OED because of its nonce use by the poet. He thought it referred to an article of clothing when instead it was an obscene term--so bad a one that I don't wish to repeat it even in this forum. Browning's use of this word was, I submit, alien to English.


----------



## Janey UK

Here are some examples of usage in the original sense of removing one-in-ten:

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2001/10/05/sun-to-nearly-decimate-staff

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Global_warming_to_decimate_Chinas_harvests_999.html


----------



## Loob

Mplsray, did you see my post no 26?


----------



## mplsray

Loob said:


> Mplsray, did you see my post no 26?


 
I did, Loob, and that led me to do some further research.

The author of the Random House Web page from which I quoted was Jesse Sheidlower, then an editor at Random House and now editor-at-large for the Oxford English Dictionary. It appears to have been written in 1997 and the feature would have been titled "Jesse's Word of the Day" at the time. Whether the version I saw later, copyright 2005 and titled "The Mavens' Word of the Day," included everything he wrote in the original version I cannot say: The page is not available via the Internet Archive.

Mr. Sheidlower was indeed aware of the use of the historical, military meaning of _decimate_ in English. His argument was that such a meaning was used only in such a historical context. So my conclusion that the verb _decimate_ in the "kill-one-in-ten" sense was alien to English was not correct.

It was discussed in a Usenet newsgroup which can be seen via Google Groups here. Jesse Sheidlower himself took part in the discussion. The opinions expressed in the thread give little or no comfort to those who think the "kill-one-in-ten" meaning is acceptable in anything but the ancient historical sense.


----------



## zedex

The point that is missed, regularly, with discussions on this word, is the original “one-in-ten” meaning describes an exercise in leniency.
The penalty for mutiny, (or desertion, or cowardice) in the Roman army was usually death; but if 100 men mutinied, then 10 were executed and the other 90 let off with a warning, that isn’t “destruction of a large part”, or “totally destroy”, by any stretch of the imagination.

Using the word in this sense nowadays is problematic; If a man sentenced to 20 years was released in 2 years, you could say the sentence was decimated; maybe. 

But if 100 out of a workforce of a 1000 were made redundant, saying the workforce had been decimated would be misleading (it's bad, but it isn't "total devastation"); and in this sense, I wonder if it sometimes _is_ used to mislead. 

So I think the term is effectively “skunked”; it can only be used in the “wrong” way.

PS What _is_ unacceptable is to use the word “wrongly” in a Roman context. To say the Romans "decimated" the city of Carthage in the 3rd Punic war, as I heard on a documentary once, is unforgivable when you read what they actually did.


----------



## TravelinTom

nzfauna said:


> To be honest, even if we all used it correctly to mean "destroy one tenth of" (or perhaps loosely as "destroy a small proportion of"), *it's still not a very useful word, is it?*



It is being used with greater frequency by US newscasters (or their writers) for "devastate".  Pay attention this hurricane season and be ready to cringe.  I would rather see "decimate" lost to the common language (i.e. defenestration) than to see it so misused.  When is the last time you heard "whom" in a newscast?  Ah, the dumbing-down of America.


----------



## TravelinTom

mplsray said:


> Despite this one example, can you point us to any other use of this sense of _decimate_ (with, I stress, the meaning "to kill or destroy one in ten") in edited running text--not involved, that is, in a discussion of the word itself? (As of now, I continue to consider it to be alien to English.)



Perhaps there are more recent examples but the last actual decimation in US history, that I am aware of, was the Mier Expedition in 1845.  The word is still used in discussions of those executions, although it is defined in modern accounts     https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/republic/mier/mier-01.html


----------



## JulianStuart

Perhaps the newer meaning is based on some concept of leaving one in ten alive, rather than "removing" one in ten.  The etymology holds up in retrospect. I think many will know the link of decimal with ten and feel comfortable with the new meaning as a result.


----------



## Packard

All the times I've ever heard the word "decimate" used over the last 50 or so years, the meaning has been clear: A _*large portion*_ of the xxxxxxx has been eliminated.

We can go on and on about how it should mean one in ten, or 90%, but the fact of the matter is that the original definition has been destroyed; the new one prevails. To use the word in the original meaning is simply not to communicate; it is to "pedanticate". (New word, don't bother to look it up.)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Packard said:


> All the times I've ever heard the word "decimate" used over the last 50 or so years, the meaning has been clear: A _*large portion*_ of the xxxxxxx has been eliminated.
> 
> We can go on and on about how it should mean one in ten, or 90%, but the fact of the matter is that the original definition has been destroyed; the new one prevails. To use the word in the original meaning is simply not to communicate; it is to "pedanticate". (New word, don't bother to look it up.)


I don't see why you should be so keen to abolish the old meaning, while granting the common usage of the new one.  There are circumstances where, on the lips of a careful speaker, I would automatically assume the 'old' 'literal' meaning.


----------



## JustKate

I have to agree with Packard. The only time I would assume the older meaning would be if I were talking to someone who I knew for a fact had a *thing* about using this word in its most technical sense. For me that would be...let's see...exactly two people out of all the people I know. Maybe some of the others do this too, but if so I don't know about it. The two that I know prefer to use _decimate_ only in its most precise sense edit a magazine for Civil War buffs, and they are extremely precise about all military terminology. If I were acquainted with a lot of historians or something like that, it might be different, but regular people, even well-educated ones, not only don't use _decimate_ to mean "one in ten," but most aren't even aware that that was the original meaning.


----------



## Packard

Thomas Tompion said:


> I don't see why you should be so keen to abolish the old meaning, while granting the common usage of the new one. There are circumstances where, on the lips of a careful speaker, I would automatically assume the 'old' 'literal' meaning.


  I bemoan when a perfectly good word is going through the throws of destruction.  But once it is dead, I treat it as dead.  In my opinion, "decimate" in its old meaning is dead.

If you wish to save a phrase, then "ground effect" is in need of your ministrations.


----------



## pwmeek

The word *decimate* has been destroyed for any useful purpose. Why would anyone want to use a word that has two nearly opposite meanings, and which will always enrage (or severely annoy) a certain percentage of the readers?


----------



## JulianStuart

pwmeek said:


> The word *decimate* has been destroyed for any useful purpose. Why would anyone want to use a word that has two nearly opposite meanings, and which will always enrage (or severely annoy) a certain percentage of the readers?


It would not suprise me to find that when the word was coined by the (?) Romans, there were some who were confused and annoyed at its meaning?  Unfortunately, we can't search the internet archives for "forum" discussion groups back then . 

At the (Latin-only forum) forum:
(Via Guglius translate)
Publius: Did you hear the ninth cohort from the  8th legion was decimated last week?
Pedanticus : You know, I hate that word - technically it means to divide into tenths and I can never remember whether the usage refers to leaving a tenth alive or killing a tenth - I'm always confused.
Publius: Yeah, it will be fun watching the historians figure this one out in a couple of millennia


----------



## TravelinTom

Did they start misusing decimate because they can never remember how devastate is spelled?


----------



## Loob

I wouldn't have thought so, Tom - not least since the OED's first citation for the "rhetorical or loose" meaning *To destroy or remove a large proportion of; to subject to severe loss, slaughter, or mortality.*​dates from 1663.


----------



## Myridon

The vast majority of people (I would call them the hoi polloi but someone here will object that "hoi" is "the"), by which I mean those who have not studied Latin or ancient history or who are not extreme trivia or etymology buffs, have probably never heard the 'original' meaning just as they never think of "awful" as meaning "full of awe, inspiring reverence" or that "silly" meant any of the meanings it has had over the centuries ("blessed","pious", "innocent", "harmless", "pitiable", "weak", ...)


----------



## Loob

Hear, hear, Myridon!

Word meanings change over time - it's just one of those things.

You might be better off expending time and energy on something else, TravelinTom!


----------



## JulianStuart

Loob said:


> I wouldn't have thought so, Tom - not least since the OED's first citation for the "rhetorical or loose" meaning*To destroy or remove a large proportion of; to subject to severe loss, slaughter, or mortality.*​dates from 1663.


As in "to reduce to a tenth" rather than the other possible, "to reduce by a tenth", the other guess, equally plausibly based on etymology - the latter being documented as the original choice of the original coiners.


----------



## Pertinax

JulianStuart said:


> Perhaps the newer meaning is based on some concept of leaving one in ten alive, rather than "removing" one in ten.



Curiously, I found this "newer" meaning in _Foxe's Book of Martyrs_:
_They then decimated all the inhabitants, both ecclesiastics and laymen, leaving only every tenth person alive; so that they put 7236 persons to death, and left only four monks and 800 laymen alive, after which they confined the archbishop in a dungeon, where they kept him close prisoner for several months._

The book was first published in 1583, but this is obviously not the language of that time.  However, I did find it in an edition of 1834.  Further searching led me to a post in another forum by one Evan Kirshenbaum, who "traced it back (at least) to [an edition dated] 1726".


----------



## JulianStuart

Pertinax said:


> Curiously, I found this "newer" meaning in _Foxe's Book of Martyrs_:
> _They then decimated all the inhabitants, both ecclesiastics and laymen, leaving only every tenth person alive; so that they put 7236 persons to death, and left only four monks and 800 laymen alive, after which they confined the archbishop in a dungeon, where they kept him close prisoner for several months._
> 
> The book was first published in 1583, but this is obviously not the language of that time.  However, I did find it in an edition of 1834.  Further searching led me to a post in another forum by one Evan Kirshenbaum, who "traced it back (at least) to [an edition dated] 1726".



Thanks - I'm impressed by your searching abilities and enthusiasm for the subject - and, of course, evidence to support my contention


----------



## Loob

Pertinax said:


> Curiously, I found this "newer" meaning in _Foxe's Book of Martyrs_:



I bet the OED would be interested to know about that, Pertinax.  (There's a big gap in their "loose or rhetorical" citations: the first one is 1663, the second 1812.)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

In BE it seems to me there are two uses of the verb:

The loose use which means to destroy, which isn't acceptable among the educated.

The educated use which has a very narrow specialized meaning, and which isn't familiar to the uneducated.

I'm sorry to see some AE members saying that the educated use has become unacceptable in AE.


----------



## JulianStuart

Thomas Tompion said:


> In BE it seems to me there are two uses of the verb:
> 
> The loose use which means to destroy, which isn't acceptable among the educated.
> 
> The educated use which has a *very narrow specialized meaning*, and which isn't familiar to the uneducated.
> 
> I'm sorry to see some AE members saying that the educated use has become unacceptable in AE.



One might be tempted to categorize the "narrow" meaning as "jargon" these days! :" words ... used by a particular group ... that are difficult for others to understand ..." (the definition can be applied to words that mean one very narrow specific thing in the jargon but are less narrowly defined by the general public - how many people discuss the sphere in which decimate can be used in its original/narrow/"jargon" mode).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JulianStuart said:


> One might be tempted to categorize the "narrow" meaning as "jargon" these days! :" words ... used by a particular group ... that are difficult for others to understand ..." (the definition can be applied to words that mean one very narrow specific thing in the jargon but are less narrowly defined by the general public - how many people discuss the sphere in which decimate can be used in its original/narrow/"jargon" mode).


I take your point, Julian, but *jargon *has pejorative overtones.  I'd prefer to call it technical language.  There are many words necessary to a discussion of the ancient world (eg. *hoplite, parasang*) which don't happen to have been taken into everyday langauge, which I wouldn't call jargon.

What surprises me is the fact that there are people, ostensibly interested in words, ready to decry the use of* decimate* in its technical sense among scholars of the ancient world.  That strikes me as simply bizarre.


----------



## JamesM

I don't see anyone decrying its use among scholars of the ancient world.  As for AE, there are certainly some AE speakers who know the original meaning but would not expect it to be understood literally in general conversation, as others have said.


----------



## mplsray

JamesM said:


> I don't see anyone decrying its use among scholars of the ancient world.  As for AE, there are certainly some AE speakers who know the original meaning but would not expect it to be understood literally in general conversation, as others have said.



I wouldn't say I am "decrying" its use among scholars. I just don't think it is really used by them, to the extent that it doesn't really count even as jargon or technical language, and hasn't in a long time. As my later posts show, I came around to the opinion that it is not as alien to English as I had thought that it was. As far as I can see, however, the use of the verb _decimate_ in the sense in question, whether by scholars or other authors, pretty much ceased to be used by the 20th century, and even when used in the past tense "the troops were decimated," it always seems to be accompanied by a definition, indicating to me that the author had doubts about the reader knowing the meaning of the word, thus making it rather useless as a technical term. "Decimation," referring to the punishment by killing one in ten, doesn't seem to fare much better. It seems to me, in fact, that about the only use of "decimate" and "decimation" without an accompanying definition or explanation is in translations into English from Tacitus.


----------



## JulianStuart

Thomas Tompion said:


> I take your point, Julian, but *jargon *has pejorative overtones.  I'd prefer to call it technical language.  There are many words necessary to a discussion of the ancient world (eg. *hoplite, parasang*) which don't happen to have been taken into everyday langauge, which I wouldn't call jargon.
> 
> What surprises me is the fact that there are people, ostensibly interested in words, ready to decry the use of* decimate* in its technical sense among scholars of the ancient world.  That strikes me as simply bizarre.


Interesting that you always think pejorative when you hear the word jargon!  I was using it in a neutral tone of voice, but you couldn't hear!  - I had no pejorative meaning in mind. The phrase "The altered pharmacokinetics of transcarbamylated glycopeptides" to me is using "jargon" (biochemical terms) and many people would find it hard to comprehend as it uses specialized words.  I don't associate the use of "jargon" there as pejorative, but replacing it with "technical language" would be fine too.


----------



## eno2

Use decimate as 'completely destroy' is completely wrong in my view. It can't be accepted. 
Decimate as "destroy a big part"  has become  the  main use,:  one has to acknowledge and accept that. 
M-W and WR defend it.
(Here's a 'discussion' or rather a listing  of 77 opinions  on decimate:
Is it wrong to use 'decimate' to mean 'destroy'? (Video))
That said  there is no reason not to use to decimate  
1 when referring to the literal,  historical  sense of destroying one in ten of the population, or thereabouts. 
2  metaphorically in a lay off of 10% of the work force or thereabouts, as mentioned in the thread here above. Or as in  a pandemic that kills 10% of the population or thereabouts. Why not?  Those who know the historical meaning will comprehend  automatically the metaphorical use too, and there are a lot of them.  The rest can look it up in whatever dictionary and learn something about standard punishing methods in  Roman legions.


----------



## eno2

Corroboration, if necessary: 


> *Decimate* Confused with “destroy”. By derivation, decimation means “killing one in 10”. Today, it is often used figuratively to mean “very heavy casualties”, but to say “completely decimated” or “decimated as much as half the town” simply will not do.


The 35 words you’re (probably) getting wrong


----------



## PaulQ

My feeling is that if the meaning were "to kill one in ten" - the verb would have been relegated to obsolescence centuries ago. It has been kept alive (ironically) by the change to mean "kill many".

I'm with Julian's "One might be tempted to categorize the "narrow" meaning as "jargon" these days!" The original meaning is not even piece of knowledge equivalent to knowing that a company of badgers is known as a "cete" of badgers.

The historical argument is not really supportable as each time it is heard it has to be explained in which meaning it is meant (or some feel it ought to be.) If the "one in 10" meaning is kept, then I would suggest that it be pronounced /ˈdɛkᵻmeɪt/, this might show learning and at the same time distinguish the meaning.

____________________________________________



eno2 said:


> 2 metaphorically in a lay off of 10% of the work force *or thereabouts*,


 That is even worse! There is the author discussing precision and he sticks in "or thereabouts" which introduces another meaning which has no historical or traditional basis.

The other, related, point is whereas it is easy to count one tenth of a group of 100 - nothing I can think of off-hand gets rid of precisely 10%. The author is effectively doing my job and condemning the word to obsolescence other than in a Roman military context.


----------



## eno2

The various meanings of decimate are well established and confirmed by such sources as WR and many other dictionaries of renown. And by media professionals as cited above. Those acceptable meanings comprise the historical one and some others. But they rightly exclude "destroy". That was what motivated me to add some posts to this thread.


----------

