It's not just great... it's PENULTIMATE!

[Pbartender]

I'd always thought that "Decimate" meant "Reduce TO 10%" not "Reduce BY 10%"

That's certainly more closely how it's actually used. If you have 100 men, and 90 are slaughtered, your forces have been decimated. If you have 100 men, and 10 are killed, then you're still pretty strong.

No... It comes from an old roman method of punishing legions. The entire legion was lined up in ranks, and every tenth man was chosen by lots to be executed, usually by stoning or clubbing, by his comrades.

Thus, 1/10th the legion was killed. It was a means of exacting a very harsh death penalty on a military unit, without actually destroying the unit. Even then, it wasn't used very often, since a 10% loss of soldiers is actually a pretty significant reduction in terms of military power.

 

[Jdvn1]

What is it with the word? Why do so many people seem to use 'penultimate' in place of 'super-uber-awesome'?

They're using the penultimate version of the dictionary, before they fixed all the mistakes.

 

[Umbran]

Using 'penultimate' to mean 'nearly the greatest' in English is not a definition, it is a pun. And I have no problem with it being used to witty effect in that fashion.

Dude, do you really want to get into the chicken-and-the-egg argument of what defines bits of language? If you go there, it'll only end in tears...

 

[reanjr]

Note to self: "inflammable" is not an antonym of "flammable."

So... very... painful!

I've heard of companies changing their tanker trucks to say "Flammable" after confusion over the word "inflammable".

 

[reanjr]

For me, the word is decimate. I almost never hear it used properly (ie, to reduce by 10%). Instead it's usually used for COMPLETE AND UTTER DESTRUCTION. Cuz it sounds cooler. It is a cool word. But for some reason it really boils my cabbage to hear it incorrectly. Especially in conjunction with literally.

He literally decimated the other team's chances of winning when he hit that ball (which brought the stands down. Literally.).

I'd say it's the Creative Writing major in me coming out, but I don't think that's it. I have a lot of tolerance for grammatical errors in casual contexts (like speaking with friends, e-mail, or message boards) but there are a handful of things that just get to me.

Another is saying ex-cape for escape.

The definition you are using for decimate is archaic. The actual modern definition of the word is to cause great destruction. Maybe now you can stop letting it get to you

 

[reanjr]

That is exactly the problem. If enough people do it, it becomes 'right'. That makes it more annoying, not less.


glass.

That's called language. Or dost thou deem confab be perforce doomed to eschew vicissitude?

The changing meanings, pronunciations, etc. of words are something to be embraced by those who love language.

I hate when people use the word cool incorrectly. It is supposed describe something having little internal kinetic energy, an antonym for "warm". But I am constantly hearing people use it to simply describe something they like, making cool mean something like great. It's absurd how people butcher the language.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's absurb how people butcher the language.

'absurb' was dictionary.com's Word Of The Day on April 1, 2002!

-Hyp.

 

[reanjr]

In English, 'penultimate' is defined; the Latin words it derived from meant "almost the last", and in English, it means "next-to-last".

In English, words are defined based on use, not the other way around. Using well-understood etymological constructions, one can make sundry words and phrases that fit within the context of the language and can be understood by almost anyone.

Should these portmanteaus be used in scholarly writings? Probably not. Should they be avoided in casual conversation? I see no reason for them to be.

Internet, cyborg, smog... should these words have their English access passes revoked revoked because at one time they did not exist? Would people be offended if I said I want to find a bunch of faggots and burn them? At one time or another, all the words we use were simply modifications of other words or sounds that effectively expressed an idea and caught on in use.

Why are the words in the dictionary placed on a high pedestal when the vernacular is what effectively conveys ideas? Isn't that the purpose of language?

 

[reanjr]

'absurb' was dictionary.com's Word Of The Day on April 1, 2002!

-Hyp.

Woops. I even checked for spelling mistakes. As pokemon has shown us, you can't catch em all because Nintendo will just make more...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Why are the words in the dictionary placed on a high pedestal when the vernacular is what effectively conveys ideas? Isn't that the purpose of language?

But when someone uses 'penultimate' to mean "even more ultimate!" - and it happens, a lot! - does that mean we should accept that what they wanted to say is what matters, even if the word has nothing to do with their intended meaning?

We know that it means "next to last". You're arguing that it can be used to mean "almost the best", because use is what's important. But if enough people use it to mean "better than the best!", does that mean we have to accept that it can mean both better and worse than the best at the same time... when neither definition is actually what the word means?

Penultimate has one definition in English. If enough people attempt to shoehorn it into another role, it may at some point become globally accepted, but until then, people misusing it should expect to be corrected by those who know what it means!

-Hyp.