If it were phrased “they decimated the population” most would assume from the phrasing that it mean that you’re saying that a large proportion was killed, because that’s how that word is actually used in the English language. If it were phrased “they decimated 10 percent of the population” you’re either using the word as people understand it wrong or your saying they killed 10 percent of the population twice right next to each other, which is you know, redundant.
The definition of words reflect how we use them. An interesting fact is that scientists use Latin for scientific names of things because no one speaks Latin so the meanings of those words will not change with time. It’s the same in courts, you’ll find that a lot of old English words that aren’t commonly used in everyday conversation are used and that’s so that the meaning of things stay consistent over time.
Unnecessary or superfluous. For example: calling an ATM (automated teller machine) an “ATM machine”.
You seem to have missed the example I gave.
If it were phrased “they decimated 10 percent of the population” you’re either using the word as people understand it wrong or your saying they killed 10 percent of the population twice right next to each other, which is you know, redundant.
What would be redundant in this circumstance is saying decimate (e.g. to kill 10 percent of a group) 10 percent of the population. This is of course assuming that the person reading it knows the historical definition of decimate.
Furthermore I used the two different phrasings as examples because if you just wrote “they decimated the population”, most people would assume a number larger than 10 percent. But if you try and clarify by stating “they decimated 10 percent of the population”, and they know its historical definition, you’re being redundant.
So in conclusion, using decimate would either confuse people or be redundant.
As an aside; when you’re trying to report something, whether that be a current event or a historical one, you should be using language that the most people will be able to understand for the sake of clarity.
Read my original reply and do realize that it stood perfectly well on its own without captain obvious swooping in to give some grade-school tier lecture that nobody asked for.
Everything about you and your smarmy act is redundant. Can you shut the fuck up? Thanks.
Your original comment didn’t stand “perfectly well on its own”, actually. Decimate meaning to destroy or kill a large proportion of something is just as literal as the definition you’re using, only the definition I’m using is much more commonly used and understood, so it generally takes precedence.
Everything about you and your smarmy act is redundant. Can you shut the fuck up? Thanks.
If you want someone to shut up on the internet, the best way to do it is to not engage them. Works just about every time in my experience. But you cared enough to engage and then engage again.
And if you don’t like smarmy people explaining things with a holier than thou attitude, engaging in internet discussion might not be the thing for you, you little piss baby.
If it were phrased “they decimated the population” most would assume from the phrasing that it mean that you’re saying that a large proportion was killed, because that’s how that word is actually used in the English language. If it were phrased “they decimated 10 percent of the population” you’re either using the word as people understand it wrong or your saying they killed 10 percent of the population twice right next to each other, which is you know, redundant.
The definition of words reflect how we use them. An interesting fact is that scientists use Latin for scientific names of things because no one speaks Latin so the meanings of those words will not change with time. It’s the same in courts, you’ll find that a lot of old English words that aren’t commonly used in everyday conversation are used and that’s so that the meaning of things stay consistent over time.
Can you define the word redundant for me? You seem to have dodged the ask.
Unnecessary or superfluous. For example: calling an ATM (automated teller machine) an “ATM machine”.
You seem to have missed the example I gave.
What would be redundant in this circumstance is saying decimate (e.g. to kill 10 percent of a group) 10 percent of the population. This is of course assuming that the person reading it knows the historical definition of decimate.
Furthermore I used the two different phrasings as examples because if you just wrote “they decimated the population”, most people would assume a number larger than 10 percent. But if you try and clarify by stating “they decimated 10 percent of the population”, and they know its historical definition, you’re being redundant.
So in conclusion, using decimate would either confuse people or be redundant.
As an aside; when you’re trying to report something, whether that be a current event or a historical one, you should be using language that the most people will be able to understand for the sake of clarity.
Read my original reply and do realize that it stood perfectly well on its own without captain obvious swooping in to give some grade-school tier lecture that nobody asked for.
Everything about you and your smarmy act is redundant. Can you shut the fuck up? Thanks.
Your original comment didn’t stand “perfectly well on its own”, actually. Decimate meaning to destroy or kill a large proportion of something is just as literal as the definition you’re using, only the definition I’m using is much more commonly used and understood, so it generally takes precedence.
If you want someone to shut up on the internet, the best way to do it is to not engage them. Works just about every time in my experience. But you cared enough to engage and then engage again.
And if you don’t like smarmy people explaining things with a holier than thou attitude, engaging in internet discussion might not be the thing for you, you little piss baby.
This entire exchange has been me watching you talk to yourself about something nobody gives a fuck about.
My original comment was well-received for a reason.