My Concise OED 1984 says

quote:

destroy tenth or large proportion or (D) nine-tenths of

D for "disputed usage."

Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage says

quote:

Sir James Murray inserted a definition in the OED, "To kill, destroy, or remove one in every ten of" [...] He presumably did this to provide a semantic bridge from the earlier sense (and especially the Roman sense) to the extended sense, but he produced no citations to indicate its actual use. Apparently decimate has never been so used in English.

So if the word has never been used to mean "destroy one in every ten," (aside from the historical use referring to Roman soldiers) then why does my OED have this meaning? Was Murray's entry never revised?

I've never heard of this use.

On the other hand, I've noticed that people who use Latin words, e.g., legion, cohort, and fascinate, almost never use them in their original meaning. For shame!

a. And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many. [Mk v.9.] (Even an evangel can't get it right for ford's sake. What hope do little Timmy or Suzie in 9th grade English have?)

b. His tone is ideally suited for writing about historical figures, especially such grotesque ones as Stalin and his cohorts. [Anonymous reader critic on Amazon.] (We're not talking about the Red Army here or Stalin's Roman legionaries, but just him and his best buds hanging.)

c. Fascinating, Captain. [Mr Spock to Captain James T Kirk on Star Trek.] (We know for a fact that Spock is not using the word in its original meaning.)

Not having nearly the scholarship you two have, I'd long assumed that "decimate" meant the killing of every tenth soldier or whoever, but had generalized to mean any killing of significant size.

As for "legion" and "cohort," aren't "army" (in the broad sense) and "battalion" the modern equivalents?

As for "fascinate," I'm unsure whether it originally meant the "evil eye" or just to capture the attention of someone. Can you two explain?

We've had some discussions on the word that you might find interesting...here, here, and here. My understanding has been that the word has evolved, but the strict meaning is as Asa says.

The first citation in the OED is from 1656: "To exact a tenth or a tithe from; to tax to the amount of one-tenth." Then the military definition is from 1600, "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."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

It has now...

Saturday's Doctor Who

The Master: Decimate. Decimate. I love that word. [to alien killer robots] Kill one person in every ten. Kill one tenth of the human race.

(Or words to that effect, I'm quoting from memory.)

I was expecting the order to be taken to mean, "...destroy a large number..." and actually said to Margaret, "I'll bet that's not what he means" when I heard the word "decimate". But then 'The Master' made his intentions clear. I was impressed with his knowledge of the English language, if not his morals!

Hee

The APS forum has a thread specifically congratulating The Master on his use of the word. I'd say that at least some of the credit ought to go to Russell T Davies, the scriptwriter.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
The first citation in the OED is from 1656: "To exact a tenth or a tithe from; to tax to the amount of one-tenth." Then the military definition is from 1600, "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."

But neither of those meanings are equivalent to "destroy a tenth of". The word has been used in historical contexts to refer to the punishment of Roman soldiers. And it has been used to mean "to exact a tenth or a tithe from".

But according to MWCDEU, it has never been used to mean "destroy a tenth of", which is the meaning in my OED. So either MWCDEU or the OED is wrong.

Yes, it has been used with that meaning in Saturday's Doctor Who, and if it has been used in other places I'd like to know.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
Hee

The APS forum has a thread specifically congratulating The Master on his use of the word.

American Philatelic Soc.?
Australian Psychological Soc.?
Advanced Photon Source?
Oh wait, I think RE might like this one:
the American PainSociety!

As for "legion" and "cohort," aren't "army" (in the broad sense) and "battalion" the modern equivalents?

A legion was closer to a modern regiment. Depending on when and where, it had between 3,000 to 6,000 legionaries in it. A cohort had between 300 to 600 men, being one-tenth of a legion. So, it was somewhere between a battalion and a company. There were also maniples and centuries. My point was, these words are used everyday in English with new meanings, and nobody goes grammar-postal over it.

As for "fascinate," I'm unsure whether it originally meant the "evil eye" or just to capture the attention of someone.

A fascinum was a phallic amulet that was worn around the neck, especially by children, to avert the evil eye. The evil eye injures the object of its owner's envy (from invidia, cf. video, wit).

And it has been used to mean "to exact a tenth or a tithe from".

Well, the Latin word had more than one meaning, oOne of which was 'to pay a tithe' and the other was discipling soldiers by having them choose lots and killing one-tenth of them.

RE: fascinate This thread reminded me again of that pesky resemblance between fasces-->fascism and fascina-->fascinate. I finally convinced myself once and for all that the 'bundle of sticks' and the enchantment are not related. Although I still find the nominal resemblance between the upright bundle of twigs and the erect you-know-what suspicious...

This is the only source I've found that addresses all the particulars. Has anyone seen further info on the subject?

This is the only source I've found that addresses all the particulars.

I'd go along with Sheidlower on this one. There seem to be two different PIE roots: one 'to gather' and the other 'to speak'. It's complicated by the fact that there was a verbal suffix *-sko- which in Latin was used to derive inchoative verbs: e.g., crescent, rubescent.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I was expecting the order to be taken to mean, "...destroy a large number..." and actually said to Margaret, "I'll bet that's not what he means" when I heard the word "decimate". But then 'The Master' made his intentions clear. I was impressed with his knowledge of the English language, if not his morals!

I have faith in Russel T Davies erudition. The moment I heard the word I knew he'd be using it properly. Now if he could just ease back a bit on the sexual politics that he seems to shoehorn into every episode of everything he writes he might make a half way decent dramtist one day.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
I have faith in Russel T Davies erudition. The moment I heard the word I knew he'd be using it properly. Now if he could just ease back a bit on the sexual politics that he seems to shoehorn into every episode of everything he writes he might make a half way decent dramtist one day.

I love Russel's work - Doctor Who, Queer as Folk, Second Coming are all brilliant. Especially Doctor Who. But as I've been trying to point out, he didn't use the word properly here. "decimate" does not and has never meant "destroy one tenth of".

Unless MWCDEU is wrong and the OED is right, of course.

quote:

Unless MWCDEU is wrong and the OED is right, of course.

Sounds quite likely to me...

The Compact Oxford English Dictionary does not have the "destroy one tenth" meaning. They say

quote:

• verb 1 kill or destroy a large proportion of. 2 drastically reduce the strength of.

— USAGE The earliest sense of decimate was ‘kill one in every ten of’, a reference to the ancient Roman practice of killing one in every ten of a group of soldiers as a collective punishment. This has been more or less totally superseded by the sense ‘kill or destroy a large proportion of’, although some traditionalists argue that this later sense is incorrect.

It seems to me that this earliest sense they speak of is James Murray's definition "To kill, destroy, or remove one in every ten of", for which he didn't provide a citation. I still don't have any evidence that this was ever a meaning of the word.

Bethree,

Sorry - the APS forum is the Apostrophe Protection Society forum.

Proving a negative is of course very difficult and I'd venture that to prove a word was never used with a particular meaning is next to impossible. Personally I'd be inclined to trust the OED, but that's just me.

If the OED needs a cite for the "killing one tenth" meaning it's got the script of Dr Who to use anyway.

Well, Goofy, here is a 1720 quote from the OED: 1720 OZELL Vertot's Rom. Rep. I. III. 185 Appius decimated, that is, put every Tenth Man to death among the Soldiers.

That seems pretty clear. The other OED quotes, however, just use the verb (such as, "typhus fever decimated the school periodically;" that was a quote from 1848, Bronte), and you aren't sure of the exact definition. It was clear from many of the OED quotes, however, that "decimate" meant putting a significant proportion of people to death.

quote:

But neither of those meanings are equivalent to "destroy a tenth of".

Referring to this meaning: "To select by lot and put to death one in every ten of (a body of soldiers guilty of mutiny or other crime)," I'd say, yes, it means to destroy a tenth of the guilty soldiers. So what if they are guilty? They are still being "destroyed."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Well, Goofy, here is a 1720 quote from the OED: 1720 OZELL Vertot's Rom. Rep. I. III. 185 Appius decimated, that is, put every Tenth Man to death among the Soldiers.

That's the usage referring to Roman disciplinary procedure: "To select by lot and put to death one in every ten of (a body of soldiers guilty of mutiny or other crime)." It is very specific. I still don't think this is the same as "destroy a tenth of." Apparently James Murray added the "destroy a tenth of" meaning to the OED to link it to the Roman sense. In other words, both of these meanings were included in the OED. They are different.

Are there any citations that do not refer to Roman disciplinary procedure but that are clearly referring to the destruction of a tenth of something?

I would consider "destroy a tenth of "as identical to "put to death one in every ten of..." How do you see them as different?

As I said, only the quote that I posted was clear about 1 in 10 being put to death. The others certainly indicated there were mass deaths (as in the Bronte quote I posted), but they didn't go further to say 1 in 10.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
..Apostrophe Protection Society forum.

I didn't realise that APS was still going. I've not been there for years.

Kalleh, that citation refers to Roman disciplinary procedure, where one in every ten soldiers was selected randomly and executed. The first use of the word in English refers to this practice. The meaning is not just "destroy one tenth of something," it refers to a very specific practice. AIUI this meaning was listed in addition to the "destroy one tenth" meaning in the first OED, which indicates that they were seen as two separate usages.

But when the word is not used in connection with Roman soldiers, it is used to mean "destroy a great proportion of". There is no evidence that it is used to mean "destroy one tenth of."

Of course, as Bob says trying to prove this would be difficult.

I would add that whether or not there is a good citation for it it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that if we are talking about a population - be it soldiers, prisoners, all the human beings in the world or penguins it's doesn't seem unreasonable to use it in the Roman sense - put to death a randomly chosen tenth of the group. So I'd say The Master's use of it was spot on.

After all marching, drilling, AWOL etc are military terms that we wouldn't think twice about applying metaphorically in other contexts.

quote:

I would add that whether or not there is a good citation for it it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that if we are talking about a population - be it soldiers, prisoners, all the human beings in the world or penguins it's doesn't seem unreasonable to use it in the Roman sense

Plus, of course, the very word has the meaning of one tenth - and we use the "deci" root in many instances when we want to express the sense of a tenth. "Decimal" is the most obvious example but there are plenty of others.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
Plus, of course, the very word has the meaning of one tenth - and we use the "deci" root in many instances when we want to express the sense of a tenth. "Decimal" is the most obvious example but there are plenty of others.

That is certainly a big reason why people seem to think it has this "destroy a tenth of" meaning. But by that logic, December should mean "the tenth month." Beware the etymological fallacy.

quote:

December should mean "the tenth month." Beware the etymological fallacy.

December was the tenth month in the original Roman calendar. I don't think that "decimate" is an example of an etymological fallacy; it's not a meaning that's been arrived at by false deduction from a similar-looking root or other part of speech..

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
December was the tenth month in the original Roman calendar. I don't think that "decimate" is an example of an etymological fallacy; it's not a meaning that's been arrived at by false deduction from a similar-looking root or other part of speech.

It's not exactly a false deduction, since it is true that "decimate" is derived from the Latin for "ten". But it is a mistake to argue that a word has a certain meaning because of its etymology. It's like saying that "unique" should only mean "the only one of its kind" because it is derived from the Latin for "one". Or like saying "December" should mean "the tenth month" because that's what it meant in Latin. Or like saying "nice" should mean "ignorant" because it's from the Latin "nescius".

Yall here have done a good job of explaining how this entry might have got into the OED. I like Bob's comment about metaphoric extension.

But on the other hand, that doesn't excuse the fact that this "destroy every tenth of" entry got into the OED without a citation. Is "decimate" actually used to mean "destroy every tenth of" or is it used to mean "destroy a large part of"? AIUI lexicography is about recording how words are actually used, it's not about recording what some people think words might mean. I am with Sheidlower:

quote:

The only sense that's ever been common in English is the figurative 'to destroy a great number, proportion, or part of', first found in the mid seventeenth century. Despite repeated claims that this sense is erroneous, on the grounds that decimate should only refer to a destruction of one-tenth, that is how the word is used. In fact, it 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.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

quote:

Originally posted by goofy:

quote:

The only sense that's ever been common in English is the figurative 'to destroy a great number, proportion, or part of',

I agree.

Of course common does not mean extant.

My own personal policy regarding the word decimate is to avoid usiing it. "Devastate" works just as well for me, and drags no controversial baggage with it.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
Of course common does not mean extant.

Good point. It's possible that it has been used with that meaning but we have no existing record.

According to that Wikipedia article, "prevent" should mean "to go before." Hogsense and nonwash! It's obvious that it means "fore-wind," or "belch!" "Postvent" means "breaking wind."

quote:

I would add that whether or not there is a good citation for it it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that if we are talking about a population - be it soldiers, prisoners, all the human beings in the world or penguins it's doesn't seem unreasonable to use it in the Roman sense - put to death a randomly chosen tenth of the group. So I'd say The Master's use of it was spot on.

Nicely put, Bob.

We all know, and have discussed, some of the citations have been in error in the OED. Nobody is perfect. And, besides, Sheidlower is an OED editor.

I guess I just don't see that big of a problem with the OED definition anyway. It's obvious it came from that original citation, and killing 1/10 of a population is mass destruction. However, if someone takes it completely literally, then of course he will think the definition isn't perfect. BTW, here are the other cites from the OED:

Relating to the taxing 1/10 of definition:

"1656 in BLOUNT Glossogr. 1657 MAJOR-GEN. DESBROWE Sp. in Parlt. 7 Jan., Not one man was decimated but who had acted or spoken against the present government. 1667 DRYDEN Wild Gallant II. i, I have heard you are as poor as a decimated Cavalier. 1670 PENN Lib. Consc. Debated Wks. 1726 I. 447 The insatiable Appetites of a decimating Clergy. 1738 NEAL Hist. Purit. IV. 96 That all who had been in arms for the king..should be decimated; that is pay a tenth part of their estates. a1845 [see DECIMATED]."

Then to dividing into tenths:

"1749 SMETHURST in Phil. Trans. XLVI. 22 The Chinese..are so happy as to have their Parts of an Integer in their Coins, &c. decimated."

The military definition:

"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. 1651 Reliq. Wotton. 30 In Ireland..he [Earl of Essex] decimated certain troops that ran away, renewing a peece of the Roman Discipline. 1720 OZELL Vertot's Rom. Rep. I. III. 185 Appius decimated, that is, put every Tenth Man to death among the Soldiers. 1840 NAPIER Penins. War VI. XXII. v. 293 The soldiers could not be decimated until captured. 1855 MACAULAY Hist. Eng. IV. 577 Who is to determine whether it be or be not necessary..to decimate a large body of mutineers?"

Then the kill or remove one in every ten of or rhetorically to destroy a large proportion of (note the Bronte quote here):

"1663 J. SPENCER Prodigies (1665) 385 The..Lord..sometimes decimates a multitude of offenders, and discovers in the personal sufferings of a few what all deserve. 1812 W. TAYLOR in Monthly Rev. LXXIX. 181 An expurgatory index, pointing out the papers which it would be fatiguing to peruse, and thus decimating the contents into legibility. 1848 C. BRONTË Let. in Mrs. Gaskell Life 276 Typhus fever decimated the school periodically. 1875 LYELL Princ. Geol. II. III. xlii. 466 The whole animal Creation has been decimated again and again. 1877 FIELD Killarney to Golden Horn 340 This conscription weighs very heavily on the Mussulmen..who are thus decimated from year to year. 1883 L. OLIPHANT Haifa (1887) 76 Cholera..was then decimating the country."

Hence, according to the OED, decimated or decimating:

"1661 MIDDLETON Mayor of Q. Pref., Now whether this magistrate fear'd the decimating times. 1667, 1670 [see 1]. a1845 SYD. SMITH Wks. (1850) 688 The decimated person."

Well, darn, so decimate has nothing to do with having ten wives?

Of course a tenth part whether donated or taxed is also a tithe--another word that I have heard used without always meaning 10%.

For a long time, I didn't know about tithe meaning 10%. Actually, I didn't know the actual meaning of decimate either, but that one made me feel stupid, since I know what "deci" and "mate" mean.

The relevant OED definition is "To select by lot and put to death one in every ten of (a body of soldiers guilty of mutiny or other crime)". But the quotes it gives don't all support that definition. (Kalleh collected them, I repeat here for convenience. Where I undo OED's ellipsis, the undone portion is in brackets.)

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. (Seems to be on on point. Cannot find text on line.)

1651 Relig. Wotten. 30 In Ireland..he [Earl of Essex] decimated certain troops that ran away, renewing a peece of the Roman Discipline. (no indication whether it's 1/10, or 100%, or anything else. Can anyone check the historical event?)

1720 OZELL Vertot's Rom. Rep. I. III. 185 Appius decimated, that is, put every Tenth Man to death among the Soldiers. (refers only to only to the Roman practice)

1840 Napier Penins. War VI. XXII. v. 293 The soldiers could not be decimated until captured. (not a punishment; a retribution for general's orders, and slightly more than 1/10: "to put all his officers and non-commmissioned officers, and a tenth of the soldiers to death ... if any damage were done to the works")

1855 MaCaulay Hist. Eng. IV. 577 Who is to determine whether it be or be not necessary [to lay a thriving town in ashes,] to decimate a large body of mutineers[, to shoot a whole gang of banditti]? (destroying a large portion, not destroying 1/10)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <wordnerd>,