For some reason, I've always been annoyed by people who say "decimate" when they actually mean something closer to "annihilate." Sure, I've misappropriated words a few times, but this particular bit just annoys me. So it was funny when I saw a cartoon in The New Yorker which featured two viking-looking guys chatting to each other. One said something like, "Did you know that decimate means 1 in 10?"

I guess it's one thing to not know what "mayhem" means (since it appears no one ever teaches that in law school), but generally, aren't people saying "mayhem" without actually meaning ripping limbs apart? Sure, "decimate" and "annihilate" both give the impression that something really bad happened, but to me, I'm going to be a lot more impressed with annihilation than mere decimation.

Friend: Still, "decimate" is pretty bad. It's not like anyone really means "one out of every ten."

McPan: But people say "decimate" in place of "annihilate!" One is clearly worse than the other!

Friend: It's not like if someone says "decimate" it lessens how bad something is.

McPan: I guess, but "decimate" should mean something less than 50% for sure. I mean, it should be a lot closer to the original 1/10.

Friend: No, I think people can use "decimate" and mean more than 50%.

McPan: That's just dumb. I mean, "decimate" is one of those SAT vocabulary words that you're supposed to figure out by looking at the root, or trying to guess what it means from the words around it. "Nihil" is practically the opposite of "deca."

Friend: Fair enough, but I think "decimate" is used commonly enough now that the original meaning doesn't matter as much.

McPan: What?! You can't say, It's a decathalon but there's only eight events.

Friend: Haven't we had this conversation before?

McPan: I know. We're such dorks.

Interestingly, whoever this "Usage Panel" is, they agree that the modern usage extends to killing a large proportion of a group but not to "large-scale destruction other than killing."

----------
Garçon means boy.