Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
  • #4158

    “could have decimate them, taken out 1 in 10″.

    2 things:

    thing one: could have decimat[b][i]ed [/i][/b]them – [i]to decimate, he decimated, they are decimating … i think [/i]

    thing two: having used decimate/d it is unnecessary to then express what it means (taken out 1 in 10) its a bit like saying ” this is a bachelors room, a room for unmarried men” … aside from being unnecessary the implication is that the reader doesn’t know the meaning of decimated and if so that they would be unwilling to look it up.


    You would think one should not have to explain the obvious…

    but do you know how many people think decimated is a terrible thing? I mean they think it’s a terrible, huge, horrible, bad thing.

    It’s a 10% casualty rate! In a serious war, that’s not that bad. You can’t maintain it, but measure the other guys casualty rate and compare.

    Now of course, in the original context, decimation was a punishment that was carried out against an opposing army, rather than a casualty rate.

    [i]However, I think your point is, this paragraph needs to be smoother, more natural, less pedantic.[/i]

    You are correct!


    Clearly, the demon could have done serious damage to the Rod and priests, at a minimum he could have decimated them, a ten percent casualty rate would be minimal under the circumstances. He could have conceivably taken out half or more of them.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.