What's new

Vocabulary rant

I have read up on "decimate" and etymological fallacy. I guess I would have said that hearing decimate used as a substitute for destroy did rub me the wrong way, and I did think it came from the Roman kill every tenth man thing. But to me decimate still means reduce or damage significantly, not to completely destroy. If it simply meant the latter, it would be just another word for something we already have words for without even any additional nuance, which seems annoying to me. I have no idea whether my formulation of this is supported by scholars. :)

I mean, you guys got it all wrong. A decimate is someone's tenth wife.
 
Blame it on social media. Blame it on the demise of print media. Heck, blame it on fast food.

Vocabularies are shrinking.

Last evening we were watching HGTV; the program focused on a Maine family camp, or cottage. Post- remodel the family toured the property. Adults and children alike screamed, "OMG!" Also, "This is so awesome!" Room to room, those were the comments. Like, totally.

Dang world is going to Hades.


In the UK, it would appear that the only way newscasters can describe anything is " it's iconic."
It jars on the ears when it has been pointed out to you.
 
Salmonella was named after an American named Dr. Daniel Salmon the veterinary surgeon who isolate the bacteria. No idea how he came by his surname.
I speculate that he got it from his Father. :whistling:
:a19: Not that salmonella is hereditary.
google said:
This intriguing and unusual name is of early medieval English origin, and derives from the Middle English and Old French given name "Salmon" or "Saumon", a contracted form of Salomon. The ultimate origin of the personal name is from the Hebrew male given name "Shelomo", a derivative of "shalom", peace.
 
One that bugs me seems regional. Lots of folks in my area use the word "conversate" when they mean converse.
 
...
The other day my son told that "words don't have meanings—they have usages".
I think he may have the right of it, sadly.
...
One of my favorite lines about communicating is a snippet from Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”
 

musicman1951

three-tu-tu, three-tu-tu
One that bugs me seems regional. Lots of folks in my area use the word "conversate" when they mean converse.

They had a like-minded president once. “There’s an old saying in Tennessee—I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can’t get fooled again.”
 

oc_in_fw

Fridays are Fishtastic!
They had a like-minded president once. “There’s an old saying in Tennessee—I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can’t get fooled again.”
He was just talking about his generation. :)
 
I am listening to a Great Courses/Teaching Company audible on "Daily Life in the Ancient World" by Roger Garland of Colgate. He was talking about what it was like to be a Roman soldier and he mentioned that a fighting unit could be "decimated" for being cowardly or insubordinate by requiring that one in ten men be selected by lot and beaten to death by their fellows. As an aside he stated that decimate had come in modern English to mean to reduce to 10% rather than reduce by 10%. "Not really, Professor Garland," as those of us reading this thread now know. But is was interesting to me that a man of his learning and scholarship thought that, and was communicating that to his students and the world at large. Seems to me this is how misunderstandings of words develop, but also how usages develop, which is how legit definitions develop. Really good listen by the way. Prof. Garland really seems to know his stuff and is a great lecturer! The Latin roots of modern English words comes up a lot in his talks. Fascinating stuff. I assume he is more precise and learned in general than he is as to the specific modern usage of "decimate." It all sounds plausible!
 

Doc4

Stumpy in cold weather
Staff member
I forget what Fowler called it when a distinct useful word took on as an additional meaning that of another distinct useful word so as to render the language more ambiguous.

I believe "slipshod extension" is what you are looking for.
 
I might have said this one before, and forgive me if I have, but I am getting older and repeating your stories is a perq of the elderly, but I have a friend who insists on using "for say" when she means "per se."
 
I believe "slipshod extension" is what you are looking for.

I think you are correct. I just looked it up in Fowler's Second Edition, which calls "differentiation" essentially the opposite of "slipshod extension." Reading the just entry for "slipshod extension" though I would find it hard to figure out exactly what Fowler is talking about. For all of Fowler's going on about the importance of clear, concise writing, I often enough find his writing to be obscure and hard to follow!

Under "slipshod extension" he uses "feasible" as an example. I gather at one point in the past folks began using "feasible" to sometime mean "likely" rather than merely "possible." To me in 2019 there is no ambiguity. "Feasible" means "possible," "practicable," "doable." There is no nuance of how likely or not it is that the feasible item will actually take place. The other example he focuses on is "dilemma," which he says and I agree, should be used only where there are only two choices, neither of which is desirable, as in the horns of a a dilemma. Fowler actually seems to allow for more than two choices, but they mush all be bad. To me a dilemma means two, not more.
 
Top Bottom