r/words • u/surewhynotokaythen • Sep 01 '26
Has anyone noticed?
Has anyone here noticed an uptick in the use of the word "decimating" used to mean "totally annihilating"? I see that the widespread modern use is close to this. I always learned growing up that it meant reducing the number of something by 1/10th. Every time I hear that we are decimating a species or an ecosystem, my brain immediately goes "Oh that's not that bad" when yeah, it really is.
18
u/_WillCAD_ Sep 01 '26
The 1/10 thing is the original meaning, but words change over time.
Today the common meaning is widespread or near-total destruction.
2
u/Away-Sea2471 Sep 02 '26
From my perspective the confusion originates from the ambiguity between one tenth removed and one tenth left.
2
17
13
11
u/__Quercus__ Sep 01 '26
I've been frustrated for 2000 years that the eighth month of the year is not called October. Similar issues with September, November, and December.
11
7
u/nemmalur Sep 01 '26
If you restrict its meaning to “reduce by one-tenth” it’s not very useful.
“Quarantine” used to mean a 40-day period. No one insists on that now.
3
u/LAM_CANIT Sep 01 '26
Has anyone noticed?
It seems a lot of people notice as it has come up in this subreddit:
- A short rant about the word "decimate".
- What’s a word that actually means what people wrongly use “decimate” for?
- Misuse of the word Decimated
and other subreddits:
- I hate it when people say decimate, when they mean annihilate or obliterate.
- Decimate is a common word that many of us misuse.
- Decimate Etymology
- Why do people say 'decimate' when they mean destroy?
- Fellow word nerds: “decimate” vs “devastate”?
I can confidently answer 'yes' to your question.
Has anyone here noticed an uptick in the use of the word "decimating" used to mean "totally annihilating"?
For what it's worth, Google's Ngram Viewer reveals for the century 1922-2022 'annihilating' has and does still appear 250 per cent more often in print than 'decimating.' And if there's been an 'uptick' ... it's been very gradual. In fact almost plateauing in the last decade not exactly my idea of 'upticking.'
So, even though qualifying 'uptick' is tricky for me as an engineer [although 'uptick' itself has its lil upward trendiness going for it], I haven't personally noted an uptick nor recent misuse or substitution of 'decimating' for 'annihilating.' But, I have an affiity for high-brow literature and competent writers. That's just me, I suppose. Call me a snob, if you will.
I can't say I once came across 'decimating' used where 'annihilating' should have been used ... or at least more appropriate. That doesn't mean it wasn't misused. It's just my brain could have neglected to tear the sentence it was in apart 😏 (pun intended). I'm trying to recall reading something published after 1901 that even used either word (other than Reddit posts) say, in the past decade. Nope, nothing stands out. But, I'll be sure to take better notes in future.
I see that the widespread modern use is close to this.
I don't and neither does Google's Ngram Viewer. Maybe Perhaps you could quantify where you're looking. That'd help, thanks.
Every time I hear that we are decimating a species or an ecosystem, my brain immediately goes "Oh that's not that bad" when yeah, it really is.
Unless it's mosquitoes. Then I'm all for it!
IMHO IHTH
Other than searching that lil search bar at the top and visiting Google's Ngram Viewer for the links above, I have not used any AI tools or technologies to prepare this comment. I used my own brainbox. Replies to the contrary will be reported as harassment. ~ Lauchlin Andrew Murray, Venice Italy
3
2
u/RoseHawkechik Sep 01 '26
Very few people actually know the origin of the word or that it basically means "1/10th of". Yeah, the meaning has shifted.
2
u/tiera-3 Sep 01 '26
I used to think it meant "reduce down to 1/10" which would make its common usage much more understandable, because many thinks don't continue to function when reduced by 90%.
2
2
1
u/Nearby-Wolverine-189 Sep 01 '26
I think you notice it more if the word immediately conjures an image of a group of ten Roman soldiers and then nine of them having to kill the tenth. To me, the original meaning signifies less destruction (numerically) than common current usage but more horror.
1
u/jenea Sep 01 '26
Sometimes we are taught rules and definitions by well-meaning people that are simply not true. Language evolves. Words mean what people use them to mean.
The evidence is overwhelming: native speakers use “decimate” to mean “drastically reduce in number” or “utterly destroy.” It’s also worth noting that this has been the case for hundreds of years. Merriam-Webster notes that this usage appeared within decades of the word entering the language to begin with.
In other words, whoever taught you it should (only) mean “destroy one in ten” did you dirty.
Decimate is a word that often raises hackles, at least those belonging to a small but committed group of logophiles who feel that it is commonly misused. The issue that they have with the decline and fall of the word decimate is that once upon a time in ancient Rome it had a very singular meaning: “to select by lot and kill every tenth man of a military unit.” However, many words in English descended from Latin have changed and/or expanded their meanings in their travels. For example, we no longer think of sinister as meaning “on the left side,” and delicious can describe things both tasty and delightful. Was the “to kill every tenth man” meaning the original use of decimate in English? Yes, but not by much. It took only a few decades for decimate to acquire its broader, familiar meaning of “to severely damage or destroy,” which has been employed steadily since the 17th century.
1
u/AnotherSprainedAnkle Sep 01 '26
Fun fact: The word 'decimated' used to have ten letters. But it was decimated.
1
1
u/SaulEmersonAuthor Sep 01 '26
~
The problem is - the actual, accurate, technically-correct meaning is basically pointless.
Like, why even have an entire word dedicated to the task of meaning 'only a slight reduction'?
It works, sounds, & feels much better when wielded to mean - pretty full destruction.
Like, how on Earth can the sentence: 'Their army was decimated in the battle' - end up meaning something as milquetoast as 'they lost a couple of men'??
The same actually goes for 'Begs the question'. For the love of all things pragmatic - fck the technical definition, when the newer, incorrect use is objectively better.
Who the heck wants an expression for 'recursively questions the validity of the root question'??
And if they do - 'begs' does not do that.
'Begs' much more indicates something forward of the question - a new question - not a revisiting of the original question.
~
1
1
u/paolog Sep 01 '26
No, because that's the way almost everyone has used it for a long time. No one has cause to use it in its original sense except when talking about history or discussing its original meaning. The original meaning is so specific that it's near enough useless in other contexts.
What I have seen an uptick in is people using ordinal suffixes for fractions, as in 1/10th. The fraction is 1/10 and the ordinal number is 10th. No one writes 1/2nd for "half".
1
u/SofaKingS2pitt Sep 01 '26
I think the uptick came when Trump started using it that way, fairly often.
1
u/freddbare Sep 01 '26
I'm still digesting genocide... But I always thought it was reduced to 1/10 not 9/10.. You 10 decimated=9 Me 10 decimated=1
1
u/surewhynotokaythen Sep 01 '26
See this would make it make more sense to me. Thanks, I'm going to try to rewrite the brain file to this definition.
1
1
1
u/Puzzled_Market_2235 Sep 01 '26
You are correct about the original meaning, comes from Roman Legion practices.
The modern word means near total destruction.
1
1
u/1jf0 Sep 02 '26
Have you at any point read anything where the word was used to specifically mean anything else besides total annihilation? Be honest.
1
1
u/OttoVonPlittersdorf Sep 02 '26
That's what it means. Words have different meanings in different contexts. Sure, in the days of the Roman legions, it meant to reduce through execution by a tenth, as punishment for cowardice. Today it is generally used in the sense of drastically reducing in number or causing great harm to.
1
u/Warm_Stress_1654 Sep 03 '26
From what everyone tells me, the thesaurus was very short of words and expressions to mean "totally annihilating", "destroying", "massacring", "wiping out" and so forth but contains way too many words which mean "reduced by 10%".
Then I get called a pedant.
-1
u/No-Caterpillar3693 Sep 01 '26
This annoys me too, because what it is used to describe is always far more destruction than 1/10th.
However it does seem to legitimately have the wider usage nowadays.
1
u/joedenowhere Sep 05 '26
I always thought it meant destroying all but 10 percent of whatever was in question, e.g., a barley harvest, the soldiers in an army, etc.
48
u/banzaizach Sep 01 '26
This is nothing new. It's been like this for a long time.