decimate... originally it meant taking or eliminating one tenth of something *of yours* (historically, killing every 10th soldier in a unit as mean of instigating discipline in the case of desertion; also, kinda similarly, taking 10% in taxes from your subjects)
it also meant to inflict a similar loss *on the enemy*, to weaken the enemy
then it meant to inflict a relatively great loss on the enemy (decimated the army = inflicting heavy losses on an army)
and today in english it's on the same level as devastate, destroy, raze (decimated the army = completely shattering the army)
i like the first two meanings and the third is okay...but the last one, that is the most common in media and conversation, really irritates me because the original meaning (reduce by 1/10) doesn't have anything to do with PULVERIZE.
"Black" shares its root with french "blanc" (white). They both come from the PIE *bhel, which was used in words describing shiny/bright things. Old English had "blæc" which meant "dark", "blac" which meant "bright" or "pale", and the verb "blæcen" which meant, you guessed it, "to bleach".
Talking of TLAs, it took me almost two decades but I finally found the word I was looking for to describe this! Finding words where you know the meaning, but don't yet know the word, can surprisingly difficult!
Onomatopoeia describes a word that sounds like what it means. TLA is a word (or phrase/abbreviation in this case, not an acronym as it is not pronouncable as a word) that says was it means, like 'word', 'noun', and "This sentence is six words long." Finally, a friend and fellow word collector pointed me to 'tautology', so I now have the word that describes my favorite linguistic phenomenon.
Sadly, my favorite word in the English language has fallen out of the concise dictionaries (I found it in the 1966 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary my parent had when I was in high school). 'pagurian' has a wonderful, mellifluous tone to it, and really sounds like it should be worked into more conversations. Sadly, the only use I can find for it is letting people know that is is my favorite word, and sadly assigned a poor meaning. If anyone has inspiration for how I can work the adjective for hermit crabs (specifically hermit crabs, not crabs in general) into casual conversations, I am open for ideas!
(I am happy the that aquaria in our office do have some pagurian residents though )
If anyone has inspiration for how I can work the adjective for hermit crabs (specifically hermit crabs, not crabs in general) into casual conversations, I am open for ideas!
You could loosely approximate that for anyone who is hiking and has their camping gear on their back.
Come on. The world needs synonyms, because some of us are REALLY bad spellers. We need multiple options to choose from in case we don't know how to spell a word properly.
@abacus , You taught me something, there, a new linguistic term. So, the "quotative like" does serve a grammatical function as a verbal quote marker.
However, I think it will always be considered a stylistic error to overuse it in a paragraph, just as it is a stylistic error to overuse any word in a paragraph.
Also, there is still a *very* strong association of the excessive use of the "quotative like" with low intelligence and lack of education. I don't see that pejorative association going away any time soon.
Alegedely it use to be pronounced with an i sound OXYMIRIM. Plural for it is Oxymora.
Talking about plurals:
Why are pants plural when there is only one (and why call it a pair). You can call it a pant leg, but where else are you going to put a single pant, so it is redundant to say that.
Fish, Sheep and Moose do not have a plural form (although fishes is starting to catch on).
And dont put a S on the end of Penne, or you may be eating something else.
It literally means the opposite of what it should mean. and if you look it up in websters, it actually has a synonym of Flammable. WTH? Can you set fire to it or not?
Many people get confused between flammable and inflammable. "Flammable" means "this substance burns in the presence of oxygen", like paper. "Inflammable" means "this substance burns without the presence of oxygen" or "it is difficult to get this substance to ignite" such as rocks. "Non-inflammable" refers to substances which will not or cannot burn, like water (by the time water vapor is hot enough to combust it has most likely separated itself into its component gases...at which point the resulting explosion is impressive--hydrogen burns very readily and the oxygen helps fuel the fire). Obviously, these definitions refer to normal conditions, even extreme ones that could be encountered in a laboratory setting. If you drop a non-inflammable substance onto the surface of the Sun I am pretty sure that it will ignite, then its by-product of combustion will also ignite, and eventually it is reduced to plasma-heated ions.
Yes, but the prefix "In" more normally means anti or not. If something is inedible, it isn't the same as if something is edible (unless it is my Ex-wife's cooking). They are opposites. Hence the peculiarity with Flammable and inflammable meaning (more or less) the same thing.
@the_spyder No, they aren't getting the definitions wrong, both words really do mean the same thing--the ability of a substance to be ignited. The two words come from different sources but both meant the same thing. You had different chemists in the early decades of chemistry in different countries using different words for the same things, which made things confusing; it is merely unfortunate that both words stuck.
There are also different degrees of flammability but we'll pick that up in another thread some other day.
inflammable is older. flammable is much newer and is a sort of a back formation. remember that the original verb is inflame and the adjective is formed from that verb (like most other -able adjectives are formed from verbs), not from the noun flame
@bob_veng , What amazes me most about all those uses of the word "set" is that native English speakers use all those expressions naturally and automatically, without thinking.
The fields of linguistics and neuroscience of language development are quite fascinating to me.
I just started Terry Pratchett's Lords and Ladies and that reminded me. I had wanted to post this quote back when someone mentioned the original meaning of "terrific".
“Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder. Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels. Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies. Elves are glamorous. They project glamour. Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment. Elves are terrific. They beget terror. The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning. No one ever said elves are nice. Elves are bad.”
Actually, the original derivation of the word Panic was actually 'fear of the great god Pan'. So remember to go see that movie this weekend with Hugh Jackman and really Panic!
Comments
originally it meant taking or eliminating one tenth of something *of yours* (historically, killing every 10th soldier in a unit as mean of instigating discipline in the case of desertion; also, kinda similarly, taking 10% in taxes from your subjects)
it also meant to inflict a similar loss *on the enemy*, to weaken the enemy
then it meant to inflict a relatively great loss on the enemy (decimated the army = inflicting heavy losses on an army)
and today in english it's on the same level as devastate, destroy, raze (decimated the army = completely shattering the army)
i like the first two meanings and the third is okay...but the last one, that is the most common in media and conversation, really irritates me because the original meaning (reduce by 1/10) doesn't have anything to do with PULVERIZE.
Onomatopoeia describes a word that sounds like what it means. TLA is a word (or phrase/abbreviation in this case, not an acronym as it is not pronouncable as a word) that says was it means, like 'word', 'noun', and "This sentence is six words long." Finally, a friend and fellow word collector pointed me to 'tautology', so I now have the word that describes my favorite linguistic phenomenon.
Sadly, my favorite word in the English language has fallen out of the concise dictionaries (I found it in the 1966 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary my parent had when I was in high school). 'pagurian' has a wonderful, mellifluous tone to it, and really sounds like it should be worked into more conversations. Sadly, the only use I can find for it is letting people know that is is my favorite word, and sadly assigned a poor meaning. If anyone has inspiration for how I can work the adjective for hermit crabs (specifically hermit crabs, not crabs in general) into casual conversations, I am open for ideas!
(I am happy the that aquaria in our office do have some pagurian residents though
Belt
Bolt
Burns
Coppice
Dell
Dingle
Fall
Forest
Hollins
Ley
Wood
Sure there are more...
weald
jungle
grove
orchard
stand
However, I think it will always be considered a stylistic error to overuse it in a paragraph, just as it is a stylistic error to overuse any word in a paragraph.
Also, there is still a *very* strong association of the excessive use of the "quotative like" with low intelligence and lack of education. I don't see that pejorative association going away any time soon.
Alegedely it use to be pronounced with an i sound OXYMIRIM. Plural for it is Oxymora.
Talking about plurals:
Why are pants plural when there is only one (and why call it a pair). You can call it a pant leg, but where else are you going to put a single pant, so it is redundant to say that.
Fish, Sheep and Moose do not have a plural form (although fishes is starting to catch on).
And dont put a S on the end of Penne, or you may be eating something else.
https://www.howtopronounce.com/oxymoron/
maybe that's what deltago meant
i don't believe taht the o sounds in -moron were ever pronounced as i
Wind.
1. The wind blew in from the east.
2. He had to wind up the toy before it would run.
WHT? Same word. Same spelling. To completely different pronunciations and meanings.
To?
Too?
Two.
It literally means the opposite of what it should mean. and if you look it up in websters, it actually has a synonym of Flammable. WTH? Can you set fire to it or not?
inflammable
[in-flam-uh-buh l]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Word Origin
adjective
1. capable of being set on fire; combustible; flammable.
2. easily aroused or excited, as to passion or anger; irascible:
an inflammable disposition.
noun
3. something inflammable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
flammable
[flam-uh-buh l]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
adjective
1. easily set on fire; combustible; inflammable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did they get it wrong?
also, it's like habitable = inhabitable
There are also different degrees of flammability but we'll pick that up in another thread some other day.
The fields of linguistics and neuroscience of language development are quite fascinating to me.