I don't really get the decimation one, didn't it start as removing 1 in 10 (with deci being the important bit) and then alter to removing a large amount? Seems more of a broadening of the term rather than an implicit misuse. I agree there's probably plenty of people who don't know the original meaning but they're not all that different.
The execution would be carried out by the 9 out of 10 left to beat the others to death with clubs.
Quote from: paul_e on August 03, 2016, 12:36:34 AMI don't really get the decimation one, didn't it start as removing 1 in 10 (with deci being the important bit) and then alter to removing a large amount? Seems more of a broadening of the term rather than an implicit misuse. I agree there's probably plenty of people who don't know the original meaning but they're not all that different.It came from the Roman army tradition of punishing a dishonoured legion, no not that one, by executing every tenth man.
Quote from: paul_e on August 03, 2016, 12:48:25 AMQuote from: Sexual Ealing on August 03, 2016, 12:38:31 AMQuote from: paul_e on August 03, 2016, 12:36:34 AMI don't really get the decimation one, didn't it start as removing 1 in 10 (with deci being the important bit) and then alter to removing a large amount? Seems more of a broadening of the term rather than an implicit misuse. I agree there's probably plenty of people who don't know the original meaning but they're not all that different.Isn't that the point, though? In the modern context implies the destroying of much more than 10%.True but it's not like outright abuse of the word as has happened with words like literally, wicked, sick and a few others.A million per-cent agree, bruv.
Quote from: Sexual Ealing on August 03, 2016, 12:38:31 AMQuote from: paul_e on August 03, 2016, 12:36:34 AMI don't really get the decimation one, didn't it start as removing 1 in 10 (with deci being the important bit) and then alter to removing a large amount? Seems more of a broadening of the term rather than an implicit misuse. I agree there's probably plenty of people who don't know the original meaning but they're not all that different.Isn't that the point, though? In the modern context implies the destroying of much more than 10%.True but it's not like outright abuse of the word as has happened with words like literally, wicked, sick and a few others.
Quote from: paul_e on August 03, 2016, 12:36:34 AMI don't really get the decimation one, didn't it start as removing 1 in 10 (with deci being the important bit) and then alter to removing a large amount? Seems more of a broadening of the term rather than an implicit misuse. I agree there's probably plenty of people who don't know the original meaning but they're not all that different.Isn't that the point, though? In the modern context implies the destroying of much more than 10%.
Would tire badly in the second half, and was left out due to fatigue for a couple of games. Think he is a good player, but loses concentration in a way Kante doesn't. Does not track runners in the same way either.
It was all a bit Paul Mortimer. He came, he went, not many f*cks were given.
My lasting impression of him was that wonderful pass from our corner to set up what i think was the third Man City goal at Villa Park in the cup ,if only he could have played passes like that going forward