• chloroken@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    25 days ago

    It would be neither. It would be appropriate.

    Can you define the word redundant for me?

    • Tenniswaffles@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      24 days ago

      If it were phrased “they decimated the population” most would assume from the phrasing that it mean that you’re saying that a large proportion was killed, because that’s how that word is actually used in the English language. If it were phrased “they decimated 10 percent of the population” you’re either using the word as people understand it wrong or your saying they killed 10 percent of the population twice right next to each other, which is you know, redundant.

      The definition of words reflect how we use them. An interesting fact is that scientists use Latin for scientific names of things because no one speaks Latin so the meanings of those words will not change with time. It’s the same in courts, you’ll find that a lot of old English words that aren’t commonly used in everyday conversation are used and that’s so that the meaning of things stay consistent over time.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        24 days ago

        If you replace “wiped out” in the title of the OP with decimate then it’d be exactly as wasteful, would use the word as it’s understood in modern English properly, and you’d get to use the original meaning too. Sure, it’s redundant (sort of) but it doesn’t take any extra time or space than what’s already written.