A friend of mine brought up an excellent point today about the news media's refusal to call the foot-and-mouth outbreak an "epizootic," preferring instead to misuse "epidemic?"
My thoughts on the matter are limited to the following:
1. I am very grateful to you for having exposed me to this great word, bordering on the onomatopoetic. 2. The US media probably don't know no better, and expect the US'n public to be just as ignorant (as I was just moments ago). 3. I heard a third thought, but have forgotten it.
. The US media probably don't know no better, and expect the US'n public to be just as ignorant (as I was just moments ago).
It ain't just US'ns wot haven't herd of no epizootic. For me, it's a candidate for tsuwm's "risible" thread, I can't take it seriously, it sounds funny.
It is simply stupid to call the infection of many animals an "epidemic". The proper word is indeed "epizootic". Some people just don't know the difference between "people" and "animals". Just as stupid, I have seen slaughtering animals because of disease called "depopulating". Hell, I learned the word "epizootic" from reading the Uncle Wiggly stories when I was five years old.
It is simply stupid to call the infection of many animals an "epidemic".
at the risk of sounding philopolemic, (or - worse - to bring on another onslaught of pythonisms) i'd say that them's fightin' words, dear bill, considering the posts that came above!
How many of us remember the Uncle Wiggly stories, from which I learned the word "epizootic" over seventy five years ago? How many can remember the three villains, and what they were trying to get from Uncle Wiggly?
My kids were given an Uncle WIggly book when they started to read-- one in which Uncle Wiggly get an upset stomach, and takes some peppermint oil tonic to sooth his stomach-- I was very happy with this book, since one of our "home remedies" for car sickness was sucking on a peppermint candy-- But i had not heard of Uncle Wiggly until they received the book-- and never heard of any one who knew them or remembered the stories fondly till your post, Bill.
The discussion re epidemic (spread of disease among humans) and epizootic (spread of disease among animals) brings up a point I'd like your opinions on. Autopsy refers to post mortem examination of humans. Now, I learned a post mortem on an animal is properly called a necropsy. However the SOED CD I have refers necropsy to autopsy and makes no mention of animals. My Veterinarian concurs that necropsy is correct usage. What about the complete OED ... any help out there? wow
I'll type fast in the hope of getting a word in before tsuwm, so forgive typos.
I think a necropsy is the postmortem examination of any creature, and that, if autopsy is really understood to mean a postmortem exam of a human, it would be a particular kind of necropsy. Necropsy may have just been adopted by the vet trade.
Oddly, in my little desk dictionary, autopsy is defined as "the act of seeing with one's own eyes." Perhaps it's related to seeing with one's own eyes how the deceased really died, rather than trusting the widow who collected on the huge life insurance policy or the guy with the smoking gun running away screaming "Finally, finally! Mwahahaha..."
Dear Hyla: I would have made this a private post, except that I would not want anyone to think I would accept without friendly correction your hasty expression "vet trade." The veterinarians of today are every bit as well educated and trained as physicians, and just as vital in the research into the cause and cure of many diseases. They are justly regarded as a profession.
as to the question of what the OED has to say, I'd quote it all, but the upshot is that autopsy and necropsy are pretty much interchangeable in their eyes (and in the citations). (the first sense of autopsy is "Seeing with one's own eyes, eye-witnessing; personal observation or inspection"; the first sense of necropsy is "a post-mortem examination, an autopsy" -- no special limitations.)
I've been wondering whether foot-and-mouth is the same disease as hoof-and-mouth. If so, why have I only heard of the latter in the last year? It does seem that all the animals that get it are hooved. (Or is it hoofed?)
hoof-and-mouth is synonymous with foot-and-mouth, could be regional differences -- or maybe hoof-and-mouth got a bad reputation from Paul Newman in "Hud" and Bill Cosby (obscure-comedy-bit-reference-of-the-week) -- or maybe we should just call it aftosa or aphthous fever.
Obviously the use of autopsy instead of necropsy and epidemic instead of epizooic is one of those rare instances where English uses one word when many would do ...
I've been wondering whether foot-and-mouth is the same disease as hoof-and-mouth
I think it was originally hoof-and-mouth, because it only had to do with animals, but them when humans got sick they decided that foot-and-mouth would be more apposite because humans don't have hooves.
On second thought that doesn't make much sense because feet have nothing to do with humans getting infected, oh well.
I think it was originally hoof-and-mouth, because it only had to do with animals, but them when humans got sick they decided that foot-and-mouth would be more apposite because humans don't have hooves.
In an ABC new bulletin, Peter Jennings explained it as a UK/US variant thing - "hoof-and-mouth" = N.America, "foot-and-mouth" = everyone else. Also, for what it's worth, there is apparently only one recorded case of a human ever getting sick from the disease. Addendum After reading Bridget's post, I thought I had better expand on the previous statement. A BBC bulletin said that in the UK, there has only ever been one recorded case of a human geting sick from F&M.
[since nobody asked, here it is] back in the days when "Hud" was in first run release, Cosby was doing stand-up comedy and his take on the scene in the movie where the cattle were herdling towards oblivion went something like this:
cow1: hey man, where we goin? cow2: goin' to get shot cow1: shot?! how come? cow2: we got hoof-and-mouth cow1: what's that? cow2: noticed that white stuff 'round your mouth? cow1: yeah... cow2: that's hoof-and-mouth
I can't remember where he went with this, or why this much stuck with me... probably had something to do with the bovine drawl he put into it.
I think it was originally hoof-and-mouth, because it only had to do with animals, but them when humans got sick they decided that foot-and-mouth would be more apposite because humans don't have hooves.
as i understand it, people can indeed get infected but the infection is temporary and mild and is not considered a public health problem. the disease gets its name from the blisters that appear on infected animals' tongues, teats and hooves.
On second thought that doesn't make much sense because feet have nothing to do with humans getting infected, oh well.
Existing lesions on a human's foot could cause him to contract the infection, as could inhalation, exposure to the virus in laboratory conditions, or drinking infected milk, but not by eating infected meat.
While it may well be that the newspapers will continue to call the hoof-and-mouth disease "epidemic", as linguaphiles we should not cave in to them. As lovers of words, we want to know their correct meanings, and teach others how to use them correctly. We should not take lightly the corruption of "decimate" nor the corruption of "epidemic". The difference between "a tenth" and "nine tenths" is important. The difference between "people" and "animals" is important. Down with the slobs too lazy to learn and remember the difference. Incidentally, I blush to admit I had never looked up the meaning of "autopsy" before. It would be restricted to humans by long usage only. "Necropsy" could quite properly be used for post mortem exaimation of either humans or animals.
We should not take lightly the corruption of "decimate" nor the corruption of "epidemic".
May I call you Canute, Bill? Decimate is changing, a change that started long ago. Do you use the word "let" to mean "allow" or "hinder"? The "corruption" you speak of is inevitable, and you yourself will use many words that have been "corrupted" from their original meanings. If I describe my room as a shambles, would you chastise me for "corrupting" the word which was used in the King James Bible for "meat market"? If I said that you were a "nice" man would you take umbrage at my calling you foolish or ignorant, or would you understand my use of its modern meaning, and berate me for "corrupting" it?
Dear Max:what I deplore is the failure to distinguish between one tenth and nine tenths in the first place. We don't need a special word for killing one in ten any more. In a hundred years it may be that control of infectious diseases will be good enough that we will not need word for infection of a significant fraction of either humans or animals. But until that happy state is achieved, let us as liguaphiles encourage the use of etymologically accurate words. And remember, King Canute was not trying to hold back the tide,he was proving that even a king could not.
let us as liguaphiles encourage the use of etymologically accurate words
My point precisely. According to one resource, the "etymologically accurate" definition of "nice" is "[O.Fr. nice, foolish, simple - L. nescius ignorant - ne, not, scire, to know]" So we should, apparently, be encouraging people to use the etymologically accurate definition, and ignore the reality that the word's definition has shifted. King Canute made a valid point, one applicable to the tides of change in both water and language. If, as you say, we don't need a specialist word for killing one in ten, what's wrong with accepting the currently popular meaning of decimate? The shift in its meaning is dramatic, but so is the shift in the meaning of "nice", and no one is arguing that we try to turn back that tide.
The shift in its meaning is dramatic, but so is the shift in the meaning of "nice", and no one is arguing that we try to turn back that tide.
Question:
It looks to me like two principles are at work here. The first is the hyperbolic 'extrapolation' of a term to the limit of its category. The second is the shift toward opposite meaning. Are these recognized etymological principles? I seem to remember a professor of linguistics at Konstanz discussing the second of these. He went so far as to say it could be applied not only to meaning, but to orthography. His example was "amor" and "Roma."
"Decimate" would be an example of the first, i.e., an 'extrapolation' from partial to complete; while "nice" would be an example of the second, i.e., a migration from 'foolish' to 'fitting,' or 'correct' (admittedly these meanings co-exist with more derogatory ones).
Webster's online gives a second definition of "decimate" - "to exact a tax of 10 percent from" [that is, "to tithe"] and gives as example, <poor as a decimated Cavalier -- John Dryden>. The shift from 10 percent to ruin here is plausible. The shift from a 'tithe of dead' to out-and-out slaughter of the meaning being discussed on this thread is not similarly intuitive, but maybe it follows a parallel course?
Let's say the contemporary use of "decimated" is a corruption only insofar as one might need a term for a 10% slaughter. On the other hand, the contemporary use might be something altogether new. Is it possible that by juxtaposing the injurious 10% with the ruinous 100% within the term, the word's meaning shifts from "acceptable loss" to devastation? The new term contains not just the notion of what the event (the decimation) ought to be, but its transcendence. By inscribing the word with the image of its own transcendence, does hyperbole force the word beyond its limits and produce something new, and signifying something more than it might otherwise have done?
The new term contains not just the notion of what the event (the decimation) ought to be, but its transcendence. By inscribing the word with the image of its own transcendence, does hyperbole force the word beyond its limits and produce something new, and signifying something more than it might otherwise have done?
An intriguing idea, and one that I like the sound of. It certainly sounds a lot better than my somewhat snide replies to Dr. Bill.
I am mostly with Max on this issue; sense shift and transferral happen, and there's no turning the tide. but 'decimate' is a particularly bad example for which to carry the flag. I say this for more than one reason:
1. the first recorded English usage was in the tithing sense mentioned above. (mid 16C)
2. the "punishment" sense was used mainly in historical, military contexts (i.e., not popularly) (late 16C)
3. the sense then shifted to the selection of 1 in 10 for anything (obs, rare - 17C/18C)
4. then, by transferral, it was applied to (A)the killing or destruction of one in ten and (B) destruction of a large proportion; subjection to severe loss, slaughter, or mortality (late 17C and on)
think about how decimate would have been used in (A) and (B) and how the meanings would have become blurred. 1856 J. H. Newman Callista The population is prostrated by+pestilence, and by the decimation which their riot brought upon them. what percentage do you suppose was meant here? we can't know, out of context, but it was certainly not 10%.
5. there is this odd citation from 1867: Freeman Norm. Conquest A systematic decimation of the surviving male adults. By decimation is here meant the slaying, not of one out of ten, but of nine out of ten.
[Bill, you'll need a time machine to fight this battle.]
addendum by sheer coincidence, I am reading a book ["Enemy at the Gates: The Battle for Stalingrad" (an Inspiration for a Major Motion Picture 8).] in which is related a story of one Russian commander who, faced with mass desertions, "acted decisively to curb the epidemic. [gratuitous topic reference] Calling a general assembly... [he] berated them... moved purposefully to the long lines... and began counting.... As he reached the tenth man, he wheeled and shot him in the head." [repeats until pistol emptied, six dead]
does he use the word 'decimate'? no, but only two pages later we find this phrase: "as Russian antitank guns pummeled his armor and decimated his granadiers." [the book is ca. 1973]
final edit (I hope) some might misapply the word "ironic" to this incidental juxtaposition. (or maybe he had a really sharp editor ; )
Well! I almost killed this after posting as a late night rant!
think about how decimate would have been used in (A) and (B) and how the meanings would have become blurred. 1856 J. H. Newman Callista The population is prostrated by+pestilence, and by the decimation which their riot brought upon them. what percentage do you suppose was meant here? we can't know, out of context, but it was certainly not 10%.
[ref: red] But that's exactly my point. I *don't* know what percentage might be meant, only that it is significantly greater than 10%. Since the change is only "very large," and the result of a specific multiple, the impact on natural language is much stronger. The extrapolation need not be complete or precise -- only extreme. It this case, it is the sense of the extreme, not its quantity, that is expressed. It seems to me this comports well with the late 17C meaning you cite, "(A)the killing or destruction of one in ten and (B) destruction of a large proportion; subjection to severe loss, slaughter, or mortality."
(Note: "extrapolation" is probably an unfortunate choice of words, it was the best I could come up with.)
tsuwm, do you have anything on the orthographical shift phenomenon.
[This is very hard to do concisely, I appreciate your bearing with me as I try]
No! Just the opposite! If it were a matter of discrete number, the 'comparison' wouldn't work.
The contrast "contained" in the meaning of your 17C usage is ***not*** numerically expressed; the impact would be lost if it ***were***.
***IF*** I am right, and the (e.g.) 17C usage contains the trace of the word's earlier meaning, what is conveyed is simply that there is an *enormous* difference between that 10% once designated and ruin before the later (e.g,, 17C) user.
It is **not** the number change, but "viscerally" experienced change that is significant. That is to say, when "decimate," which once meant "tithe" (or other 10% taking), is applied to a ruinous event, the contrast between that more manageable original meaning and the present actual ruin is brought to the fore. The impact on understanding is not clinical, but palpable (like Hecuba's "gone all gone" -- she doesn't go around taking a numeric inventory of her losses, but wails and laments "all is gone").
This contrast is probably lost among modern users, but that doesn't mean it would not have been apparent in some way, to, e.g., 17C users (who were, perhaps, more familiar than us with the concept of tithing -- and with the sort of warfare in which one would speak of 10% dead as a kind*, and not merely as a figure of casualties*)
The encapsulated contrast is the poetry of the word and **not** its past to present ratio in number.
--As I say, this is hard to do in a couple of lines. Is that at all clearer. (and do you promise to tell me if you know anything about "amor"?)
*Incidentally, I think it would also be worth thinking about the relationship of the senses "tithing" and "war dead". The latter being a kind of "tithe to the Lord" perhaps (particularly if applied to losses during Crusades) ???
Dear Pooh-Bah I,aka tsuwm: Thanks for you helpful post about the antiquity of the change in "decimate". I now see that I was grievously in error in thinking it was of much more recent occurrence, perhaps of less than a hundred years. But with the epidemic, epizootic problem it does not seem that "epidemic" ought replace "epizootic".
Meantime, one more conjecture: the transition tithe to ruin parallels the theo[cratic] extremes of tithe and holocaust, each of the latter is a kind of an offering -- if not to God than to his priests.
Make the Crusade connection (as the Dryden citation from my original post (interrogatory…) suggests), and the shift from tithe to utter destruction becomes a "decimation triangulation."
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.
For me, it's a candidate for tsuwm's "risible" thread, I can't take it seriously, it sounds funny.
Decimate is changing, a change that started long ago. Do you use the word "let" to mean "allow" or "hinder"? The "corruption" you speak of is inevitable, and you yourself will use many words that have been "corrupted" from their original meanings. If I describe my room as a shambles, would you chastise me for "corrupting" the word which was used in the King James Bible for "meat market"? If I said that you were a "nice" man would you take umbrage at my calling you foolish or ignorant, or would you understand my use of its modern meaning, and berate me for "corrupting" it?
and
