I guess I feel compelled to call it out for two reasons. First, because the current usage is historically incorrect and I don't subscribe to the philosophy that continued incorrect use of a word makes the incorrect popular definition acceptable. Second, even with a modern interpretation, in reference to Oracle it is still incorrect. The modern sense of decimated means "a large proportion of" according to Oxford. This is vague. When talking about a pandemic taking out a large proportion of a population, 40% would be pretty damned large. Yet Oracle's case is now essentially nonexistent so merely saying "a large proportion of" is insufficient and there are far better words that convey how Oracle's case has been damaged.
Would you then say that your use of guess is incorrect because the Old English gessen meant estimate and not suppose? That you are literally compelled in the sense that cattle are driven together, like the Latin word compellere? Or that you’re literally calling out the title to fight?
I won’t go past your first sentence because I already sound like an ass. But you see what I mean: language changes over time. Meanings are lost or transformed or extended by analogy and, though it may pain us, “incorrect” uses abound and eventually become the norm. You don’t have to like it or agree with it, but it does happen, and prescriptivism gets you nowhere in discussions of language.
Hah, I feel the same way a lot, actually. But occasionally we find ourselves in our element, and it’s like “Wait a minute, I do know things!” Or at least know where to look them up and how to present them intelligently. ;)
I try to phrase things in terms of sharing or helping instead of arguing. Not everything must be an argument! The less adversarial the phrasing, the easier it is to accept correction from a peer.
With respect to "guess" instead of "suppose", I'm essentially being sloppy in my writing and I really would like to improve that. I know you were just making a point, but it is fair criticism.
As I wrote in another reply, I think I just really like the original meaning of decimated and I feel it's a shame to lose that due to popular [mis]use, even if that's just how language works.
[Edited to remove logical argument and replace it with sentimental one.]
Well, no, guess does mean suppose in modern English. Your use is perfectly correct.
Googling “define:decimate” gave me:
1. Kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage of
2. Drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of
Which is in line with most people’s understanding of the term, and makes no mention of the original meaning.
The problem with prescriptivism is that the rabbit-hole goes back to the very beginning of language itself. You could start saying an ekename (from eek meaning other) instead of a nickname, or a napron instead of an apron because these words arose from misdivision. You could revert to pronouncing fir, fur, and verse with different vowels. You could bring back the eo diphthong and say seolfor for silver and geolu for yellow.
But you wouldn’t, because that’s absurd, and I contend that dragging our heels against any language change is equally absurd.
> I contend that dragging our heels against any language change
> is equally absurd.
If by "any" you mean "all", then I agree. With "decimated", the meaning "one-tenth" is still an accepted current definition rather than an anachronism. So I choose to selectively drag my heels and cherry-pick definitions when it comes to words I enjoy.
So are you idealistically opposed to evolution of language by repurposing of words? I've always found it an interesting debate...correctness vs popularity. In this case, the root of the word (dec...ten) makes it obvious the "correct" usage of the word as you point out (I also didn't know that that's what "decimated" means, thanks for pointing it out). So I tend to agree with you there.
On the other hand, when defining language itself, all I can really come up with is "a generally agreed-upon form of communication." If enough people agree that "decimated" means "destroyed" (as I thought it did), then doesn't that in itself morph the language?
Then there's the big-picture view: the language is going to morph by general consensus whether or not I agree with it.
For some words, I prefer to cling to the last vestiges of the archaic definition until there's nothing left. And "decimated" is too cool of a word to, er... annihilate the original meaning.
I think a solid case could be made that 10% of the original meaning is left.
If you really like the original meaning, then you should increase its usage in as originally meant so that there's a reason for dictionaries to place the original definition next to the ones that other people actually use in real life.
Interesting, in a recent study, "decimate" was found to be one of the most common targets pendants [1] :) Bottom line, languages evolve, words change, get used to it.
' "The court's reliance on "interoperability" ignores the undisputed fact that Google deliberately eliminated interoperability between Android and all other Java platforms," the company said in a statement issued this afternoon. "Google's implementation intentionally fragmented Java and broke the "write once, run anywhere" promise." '
So Oracle's argument is now (or has been) 'it's copyright infrignment if you copy part of it, but not if you copy all of it!'
>Some speculated an Oracle win could have scared programmers away from Java, but that kind of ruminating is a moot point now.
I'm not so sure they had to win to make that happen. Bringing this case forward in the first place was a great step in destroying the Java platform. And it wasn't even their first step, though it's gotten more attention than anything else so far.
Oracle is killing Java. The metaphor of the goose that lays golden eggs is terribly apt, here.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army)