Thank you for directing me to Julian Burnside's excellent article on enantiodromic words http://www.users.bigpond.com/burnside/contradicting.htm; while it makes very clear what this class of words is, at the same time, it makes me doubt whether 'decimate' can be counted among them.

The enantiodromic is a class of polysemic words whose meanings are opposite, but not contemporaries. They display a shift of meaning to opposite meaning over time. In terms real use, however, they will not, have retained both meanings when the shift is complete; and it is to be surmised that they cannot actually be classed enantiodromic until that shift is complete.

Burnside uses another term, amphibolous, to describe the class of polysemic words whose opposite meanings are contemporaries, words such as: fast, quite, to sanction, and to weather. But while each may have to meanings, only one of these is meant in any given occurrence. The irony of paradox is not inherent in the use, but from the distance of linguistic investigation.

Finally, in our March 24 exchange, you objected to an argument which you had mistakenly attributed to me. In one responses, you wrote

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%.

and in a later one

inselp, I'm afraid I don't quite *get your point. are you saying you have a need to know the actual percentage? I don't think you are, but. >the result of a specific multiple what does this mean?

Let me be clear, the point isn't one-upmanship. What interests me, here, is the logic of your responses. Superficially, the position attributed to me is ludicrous and objectionable on that ground. Fundamentally, however, you are pointing out a perceived fallacy in my argument. If the meaning shift in question is from ten percent to a percentage greater than ten percent, it is not the logical shift of a meaning to its opposite, but a shift in degree. This is what I intended when I used the word "to extrapolate."

In its current common usage, "to decimate" is to destroy utterly. But "to destroy utterly" is not the opposite of "to destroy 10%." Further, we do not consider its original meaning when we here its common use-unless, as wwh, it is to point out an error.

I maintain, however, that it is at least possible that, at one point in the career of its development, the irony of "to decimate" may have been recognized when it was used to mean "to destroy utterly." In that case, both meanings would inherent at one and the same time. And in that case, it is neither a word having more than one independent meanings at once, nor a word having opposite meanings but not in a single context, nor a word whose career carries it from one sense to its opposite.

Then, if my conjecture at the top of the last paragraph is correct, "to decimate" would have, at least at one point in its history, have belonged to another class of words altogether.


This is Binky, wishing you a pleasant from the rings of Saturn, signing off.