Martin wrote:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:03:36 +0100, Stephen Howard
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 08:28:00 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 21:46:31 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...

[snip]

You might have to spend a week doing this, but it will
decimate
the population to such an extent that a weekly patrol will
probably be adequate.

There is only one extent to which a population can be
decimated,
namely to kill off one in every ten.
That leaves 90% fighting fit.
{:-((

There's always one...

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/decimate.html

Interesting.
I suppose it is futile to think that words may retain their
definitions when there are so many ignorant wordsmiths bandying
them
about.


And that points up your misconception that language is static in
nature.

I thoroughly recommend a book called Mother Tongue, by Bill
Bryson.
Should you ever read it I think you'll be appalled to find that
you're just as guilty as the next 'ignorant wordsmith' when it
comes to twisting definitions - and you'll also discover that many
of your linguistic tenets have extremely suspect origins ( such as
the venerable OED ).

Bill Bryson is a more reliable authority, than the compilers of the
OED? Not in my opinion.

Bill Bryson isn't _any_ kind of authority: what he is is a
enthusiastic word-lover, offering the kind of insights a professional
writer has. That's invaluable, in my opinion; but his work is not to
be mistaken for reference material.

I don't get the bit about the OED having extremely suspect origins:
as far as I know its scholarly origins are a matter of record; if
"suspect" is being used here as a political judgement, well, it's
hardly relevant.

Mike.