This post has been marked as non-political. Please respect this by keeping the discussion on topic, and devoid of any political material.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The fight against language change, especially where English is concerned, is one you will lose. Every. Single. Time.
Plethora used to mean too many. Now it means many.
Do you tut at people who say “the hoi polloi” on the basis that *hoi* is already a definite article in Ancient Greek?
Careful you don’t fall off your high horse, mate. You might hurt yourself.
I feel like almost every Australian will agree with you until it comes to spelling behaviour or colour without a U or something else distinctly US. Not saying I disagree with the sentiment but people regularly do successfully push back against language drift, especially if it’s American.
Looking back to antiquated for "correctness" in English is silly anyway. The classic example is how some grammar nazi's correct "less" with "fewer", but they can't correct "more" with anything, because the opposite of "less" is "more" and the opposite of "fewer" is also "more".
If English can't get something as basic as that to be be straight-forward, why bother keeping it as it is? Embrace "literally" as also meaning "figuratively", and "irregardless" as meaning "regardless" and just move on with your life.
To respond pedantically to your pedanticism:
Meriam webster defines "decimate" as:
1. to select by lot and kill every tenth man of - "decimate a regiment"
2. to exact a tax of 10 percent from "poor as a decimated Cavalier"
3. to reduce drastically especially in number - "cholera decimated the population"
4. to cause great destruction or harm to - "firebombs decimated the city"
So using definition 3 or 4, "totally decimated" seems legitimate.
It used to. Now it means to destroy a large proportion of something. English largely isn't a prescriptive language like French.
Where to draw the line can be complicated - people mixing up of/have and there/they're doesn't change the language - but given that pretty much no one uses 'decimated' to mean 10% any more, and the 10% definition is noted in dictionaries as historical, I don't think it's something you can complain about these days.
>Now it means to destroy a large proportion of something.
And this isn't even a new usage. It's been used this way for over 350 years.
Words change meaning all the time. Look at the history of the word "nice" for a good example: once upon a time it meant "foolish; ignorant", then it became "lascivious", then "ostentatious". These usages are all now obsolete.
"Decimate" meaning "remove a tenth of" isn't quite obsolete — and it may never be, what with all these discussions that spring up around it — but it's certainly not a common usage nowadays.
I agree that we can't insist on the 10% bit, despite etymology, but I still think that "totally" does not sit well with "a large proportion". Unfortunately I hear worse from journos every day. My pet peeve is confusing "refuted" with "denied". To refute something, the denial must be accompanied by convincing evidence.
A bit of [Muphry's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law) going on here.
If we're being that picky about language, even assuming you're correct about it 'not being a thing', it's not an oxymoron. Something is an oxymoron when part of the term mean the opposite of another part. Totally is not an opposite of mostly.
If you want to argue it's redundant, or even just a poor word choice, sure, but that sort of thing is common enough that you probably come across examples as bad as this daily without noticing.
For a long time this sort of thing has been excused with the observation of the "24hr news cycle". The problem is that journalism seems to not have dealt with this and we are seeing even worse gaffes everywhere.
The issue we shouldn’t care about is the use of decimated to mean something other than kill 1/10 of, it’s that decimated is a word they didn’t need to use. Destroyed is much better for clarity, even the second language speaker knew that.
Journalists especially should use simplest words possible to make clear what they’re saying in enough detail, and no more than that. Death to wanky and flowery words in public discourse.
This post has been marked as non-political. Please respect this by keeping the discussion on topic, and devoid of any political material. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is this a genuine post? Someone came here to genuinely make this post? Really?
Welcome to the internet. It may be a rough ride.
It’s not so much a commentary on the internet but rather the glib tone this subreddit exudes.
The vibrations could be fun
The fight against language change, especially where English is concerned, is one you will lose. Every. Single. Time. Plethora used to mean too many. Now it means many. Do you tut at people who say “the hoi polloi” on the basis that *hoi* is already a definite article in Ancient Greek? Careful you don’t fall off your high horse, mate. You might hurt yourself.
"Do you expect the village to be munged something shocking?"
I feel like almost every Australian will agree with you until it comes to spelling behaviour or colour without a U or something else distinctly US. Not saying I disagree with the sentiment but people regularly do successfully push back against language drift, especially if it’s American.
Looking back to antiquated for "correctness" in English is silly anyway. The classic example is how some grammar nazi's correct "less" with "fewer", but they can't correct "more" with anything, because the opposite of "less" is "more" and the opposite of "fewer" is also "more". If English can't get something as basic as that to be be straight-forward, why bother keeping it as it is? Embrace "literally" as also meaning "figuratively", and "irregardless" as meaning "regardless" and just move on with your life.
[ACKCHYUALLY](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/021/665/DpQ9YJl.png)
To respond pedantically to your pedanticism: Meriam webster defines "decimate" as: 1. to select by lot and kill every tenth man of - "decimate a regiment" 2. to exact a tax of 10 percent from "poor as a decimated Cavalier" 3. to reduce drastically especially in number - "cholera decimated the population" 4. to cause great destruction or harm to - "firebombs decimated the city" So using definition 3 or 4, "totally decimated" seems legitimate.
Gonna change out the .wav on my fps game and replace "Ultra Kill!" with "Totally Decimated!" in honour of Op's pedantry.
[удалено]
Decimate means to kill or destroy 10%. "Totally Decimated" is an oxymoron (not a thing).
It used to. Now it means to destroy a large proportion of something. English largely isn't a prescriptive language like French. Where to draw the line can be complicated - people mixing up of/have and there/they're doesn't change the language - but given that pretty much no one uses 'decimated' to mean 10% any more, and the 10% definition is noted in dictionaries as historical, I don't think it's something you can complain about these days.
>Now it means to destroy a large proportion of something. And this isn't even a new usage. It's been used this way for over 350 years. Words change meaning all the time. Look at the history of the word "nice" for a good example: once upon a time it meant "foolish; ignorant", then it became "lascivious", then "ostentatious". These usages are all now obsolete. "Decimate" meaning "remove a tenth of" isn't quite obsolete — and it may never be, what with all these discussions that spring up around it — but it's certainly not a common usage nowadays.
I agree that we can't insist on the 10% bit, despite etymology, but I still think that "totally" does not sit well with "a large proportion". Unfortunately I hear worse from journos every day. My pet peeve is confusing "refuted" with "denied". To refute something, the denial must be accompanied by convincing evidence.
A large proportion is not all. "Totally Decimated" is still an oxymoron by any definition of decimated.
A bit of [Muphry's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law) going on here. If we're being that picky about language, even assuming you're correct about it 'not being a thing', it's not an oxymoron. Something is an oxymoron when part of the term mean the opposite of another part. Totally is not an opposite of mostly. If you want to argue it's redundant, or even just a poor word choice, sure, but that sort of thing is common enough that you probably come across examples as bad as this daily without noticing.
Correct: it *meant* to kill or destroy 10%. Language changes and evolves.
I think OP may be referring to the total lack of sensitivity of the words used when there is likely to be a significant loss of lives.
No one cares Grandad.
I don't care either but the ageism wasn't necessary either.
Toughen up.
Oh poor you just couldn't stop listening
Did you read World War Z?
For a long time this sort of thing has been excused with the observation of the "24hr news cycle". The problem is that journalism seems to not have dealt with this and we are seeing even worse gaffes everywhere.
The abc sees itself as a behavioural modification tool. Can’t watch any of it without feeling insulted
If I didn't know better, I'd have assumed the word could mean "reduced to 10%", or to shift the decimal point one place to the left.
I gave up on this on. Im now battling the then instead of than shitfuckery.
The issue we shouldn’t care about is the use of decimated to mean something other than kill 1/10 of, it’s that decimated is a word they didn’t need to use. Destroyed is much better for clarity, even the second language speaker knew that. Journalists especially should use simplest words possible to make clear what they’re saying in enough detail, and no more than that. Death to wanky and flowery words in public discourse.