Hi,
But it is exactly the second sentence that pushed my button. Clearly, the original meaning of 'to punish a group by killing one in ten selected by lot' is of little use today. So, to extend the meaning to 'killing a significant portion of a group' is understandable. Perhaps even to ' . . . most of a group'. But here is a perfectly fine, common word, for eradicating a group -- it's 'exterminate'. Actually, that sentence has two
This is true. The meaning of words change, sometimes by misuse, sometimes by clever use. But we are not speaking of uneducated people here. The person who wrote this is a professional writer. Language is his tool, his material. By misusing words, he shows himself to be a poor workman, incompetent in his profession. Of course, it could have been a good writer keeping a character in persona. However, those sentences were uttered by Dr. Daniel Jackson in an episode of SG-1. A mistake like that, in the mouth of the world's greatest linguist, is probably not done intentionally to develop the character.
--Pete
Hi,
We call them 'brain donors'. They are the kind souls who, having no personal use for a brain, try to preserve it in pristine condition for the recipient of the transplant.
--Pete
PS Another pet peeve: "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear"
(05-21-2010, 03:42 PM)Gnollguy Wrote: You know I actually had to hit a dictionary to figure out what Pete was talking about with the 90% because I didn't realize that was the original meaning of the word. I should have, but I didn't. My Webster's dictionary pretty much matched dictionary.com and the first definition makes it kinda work in his quote. heck they even pretty much use that as an example, minus the second sentence.
But it is exactly the second sentence that pushed my button. Clearly, the original meaning of 'to punish a group by killing one in ten selected by lot' is of little use today. So, to extend the meaning to 'killing a significant portion of a group' is understandable. Perhaps even to ' . . . most of a group'. But here is a perfectly fine, common word, for eradicating a group -- it's 'exterminate'. Actually, that sentence has two
Quote:So the word decimate has changed, mostly through ignorant usage and because it has a "powerful" sound to the syllables, the hard consonants and going from a short to long vowel. Which probably lent to the meaning becoming broader.
This is true. The meaning of words change, sometimes by misuse, sometimes by clever use. But we are not speaking of uneducated people here. The person who wrote this is a professional writer. Language is his tool, his material. By misusing words, he shows himself to be a poor workman, incompetent in his profession. Of course, it could have been a good writer keeping a character in persona. However, those sentences were uttered by Dr. Daniel Jackson in an episode of SG-1. A mistake like that, in the mouth of the world's greatest linguist, is probably not done intentionally to develop the character.
--Pete
Hi,
(05-21-2010, 04:06 PM)Lissa Wrote: Well, there is plenty of proof out there that there are people that don't even use 1%.
We call them 'brain donors'. They are the kind souls who, having no personal use for a brain, try to preserve it in pristine condition for the recipient of the transplant.
--Pete
PS Another pet peeve: "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear"
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?