Loretta Lynn was only 15 when she and Doolittle married. They had six children and were married 48 years at the time of his death. I was a teenage bride and we're hoping to make it to our golden anniversary. In my region of the country teenage brides aren't unusual, although it's usually late teens, not early teens when they marry. It's interesting to me that in the Middle Ages richer girls usually married young while poor ones married when they were older. I suppose it was due to richer families sometimes arranging marriages for attaining property or titles rather than the daughters dreaming of young, romantic love.
This seemed weird to me, because the original Shakespeare play says that "Juliet had not seen the change of 14 years", so she's obviously 13 - but I seem to remember that in translations I've read, both in French and German, it says that she "hasn't entered her 14th year", which would make her 12, since you're in your 14th year at 13. I wonder if this is a mistranslation or if I misremembered! I'll try to check that out, eventually.
I very much appreciated the timely mention of Scythia! For those of you have not yet watched “The Old Guard” on Netflix, run, don’t walk to your nearest streaming device and do it right now.
@APHill, look it up. Any dictionary will include the much more common definition of decimate as "to destroy a large part of" alongside the historical definition of killing every tenth man. In fact, the definition of decimate suggested by this quiz--to destroy 10% of something--is probably the least accurate. It is rare to find a definition of decimate that is as specific as 10% while simultaneously as general as "destroy something." If the definition specifies 10%, it's almost always in relation to a specific act: killing 1 in 10 soldiers or taxing 10%. If the definition doesn't specify 10%, it usually means to destroy a large part of.
In short, you might be using the word according to its most controversial meaning, whereas those you criticize are using it for its most widely accepted meaning.
If your argument is "everyone has been using the wrong definition for so long that it has become far more prevalent than the correct definition, thereby making the wrong definition right", then you have already lost the argument.
Actually, APHill, it is on precisely that basis that the dictionary has changed a lot of definitions. They fairly recently amended "momentarily" to include the previously-incorrect "in a moment" (as in "I'll be with you momentarily"), in addition to the established, correct meaning: "for a moment" (as in "I looked momentarily out the window.") I don't really like that change myself, but the fact is that words mean what most people agree they mean.
That may be true in general terms, but in this case the new meaning is almost the opposite of the original meaning, and when a word means two opposite things it becomes almost useless. Whenever I hear the word "decimate", if the context isn't very clear then I want to ask - "what do you actually mean?
Destroyed a large part of it, or destroyed a small part of it?"
Jon, there are many words like that. They're called contronyms. Some examples are "sanction" (to punish or to approve behavior), "screen" (to block or to show), "cleave" (to split apart or stick together), "to dust" (to sprinkle with particles or to remove particles), "variety" (referring to one specific type of something or to something have many types), and "to weather" (to endure something and survive, or for something to erode something else). There are a lot more, but those are the ones I can summon right now. But a word whose meanings contradict each is other nothing new.
President Eisenhower made that word much more popular. And Warren Harding invented the word "normalcy" as a part of his campaign slogan when running for President in 1920.
I literally could care less if people use do diligence with language. It just doesn’t peak my interest, per say, to try and nip bad grammar in the butt. Unthaw your heart, and its deep-seeded grammarian ways, and let people have free reign over their language! As long as the wording jives with meaning, it’s all a mute point.
Eh, if you're okay with a quarantine not lasting 40 days, or something other than a stone building being called dilapidated, or a dashboard being used for something other than keeping dirt from being kicked up (or "dashed") into your face, or saying something is terrific without it inspiring terror, or calling something that exists in the real world fantastic, then you can live with decimation affecting more than 10%.
In my Grimm's Fairy Tales book when I was little, Gretel never pushes the witch into the oven, they somehow escape (I forget how) and the witch chases them. Somehow Hansel ends up being permanently changed into a deer but they bump into the King's hunting party (I think) and Gretel sweet-talks the prince into catching the witch and saving Hansel, and then the prince marries her and they all live happily ever after. It's a bit non-standard.
Originally fairy tales were NOT aimed at children. They were stories adults told to each other for amusement or cautionary tales, not unlike watching "The Walking Dead" or other horror shows nowadays.
I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that pre-Renaissance fairy tales were not for children. I’m sure there’s a reason that Hansel and Gretel were children and found a house made of confection. I think it’s more likely that things were just generally more brutal in the 1600s and kids were expected to understand the brutality of the world. I mean, heck, it wasn’t uncommon that parents would actually ditch unwanted children in the woods in 17th century Europe. I think a lot of these brutal fairy tales were probably meant to teach children moral lessons.
I got tricked by the public/private transatlantic difference in the last question. A football coach seemed the obvious high earner, but they wouldn't be employed by the government I thought! Darn you Americans and your twisted terminology!
While historically, the word 'decimate' has been attributed to the idea of '1 in 10', it was almost entirely used in a military sense. Furthermore in a modern context, is most commonly used to describe something that is completely destroyed or demolished.
So, Juliet has the same birthday as Harry Potter - and, coincidentally, myself! Yay!
In short, you might be using the word according to its most controversial meaning, whereas those you criticize are using it for its most widely accepted meaning.
/ˈdɛsɪmeɪt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: decimate; 3rd person present: decimates; past tense: decimated; past participle: decimated; gerund or present participle: decimating
1.
kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of.
"the inhabitants of the country had been decimated"
drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something).
"public transport has been decimated"
2.
historical
kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group.
"the man who is to determine whether it be necessary to decimate a large body of mutineers"
Destroyed a large part of it, or destroyed a small part of it?"
u slef conceeted persin
It seems you posted tomorrow.
edit
It also seems i replied tommorow,
Las Vegas NV local time.