The Lemon Fool

Tonight's STV news (fishing in Cambodia) :

"...illegal fishing has decimated the fish stocks by 50% ..."

At least it wasn't the good old BBC!

https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/201 ... one-tenth/

Scott.

Interesting. Having been ticked off for (mis)using decimated in the last decade or so, I'm now little wiser.

Executive summary of the blog:

Etymological Fallacy and decimatus being of relevance.

Possibly.

Gower includes:

We may say 'the attacking troops were decimated', meaning that they suffered heavy losses, but we must not say 'The attacking troops were badly decimated' and still less 'decimated to the extent of 50 per cent or more'..

PinkDalek wrote:we must not say 'The attacking troops were badly decimated'.

What rot. If every nine and a halfth soldier was killed, they'd have been very badly decimated.

BJ

PinkDalek wrote:We may say 'the attacking troops were decimated', meaning that they suffered heavy losses, but we must not say 'The attacking troops were badly decimated' and still less 'decimated to the extent of 50 per cent or more'..

I take it you're 110% committed to calling out such abuses?

UncleEbenezer wrote:

PinkDalek wrote:We may say 'the attacking troops were decimated', meaning that they suffered heavy losses, but we must not say 'The attacking troops were badly decimated' and still less 'decimated to the extent of 50 per cent or more'..

I take it you're 110% committed to calling out such abuses?

I am 100% not Gower, so you are asking the wrong person!

PinkDalek wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:

PinkDalek wrote:We may say 'the attacking troops were decimated', meaning that they suffered heavy losses, but we must not say 'The attacking troops were badly decimated' and still less 'decimated to the extent of 50 per cent or more'..

I take it you're 110% committed to calling out such abuses?

I am 100% not Gower, so you are asking the wrong person!

Quite the contrary!

Whereas it would be futile to ask someone with whom I have no means of communication, you are the person who posted the quote here. Your endorsement seemed clear enough, but its extent - the importance you attach to it and the lengths to which you would go in support of it - called for additional clarification.

My point was that Gower would appear to have agreed with the OP. I used to be indecisive but now I'm not so sure.

"...illegal fishing has decimated the fish stocks by 50% ..."

If fish stocks had been decimated log0.90.5 times they would have been reduced by 50%.

(log0.90.5 = approximately 6.579.)

Julian F. G. W.

"...illegal fishing has decimated the fish stocks by 50% ..."

Well I don't know who carried out the decimation, but it seems to have happened on a certain loch I was fishing on Wednesday, and I most certainly was not the guilty party.

jfgw wrote:If fish stocks had been decimated log0.90.5 times they would have been reduced by 50%.

So we're using logs on fish now, are we? Shameful. This would never have happened with rods or poles. Not even to perch.

BJ

scotia wrote:

"...illegal fishing has decimated the fish stocks by 50% ..."

Well I don't know who carried out the decimation, but it seems to have happened on a certain loch I was fishing on Wednesday, and I most certainly was not the guilty party.

I have a cast that ensures trout stocks are never depleted, the forerunner to catch and release, don't catch so no need to worry about release.