With respect to "guess" instead of "suppose", I'm essentially being sloppy in my writing and I really would like to improve that. I know you were just making a point, but it is fair criticism.
As I wrote in another reply, I think I just really like the original meaning of decimated and I feel it's a shame to lose that due to popular [mis]use, even if that's just how language works.
[Edited to remove logical argument and replace it with sentimental one.]
Well, no, guess does mean suppose in modern English. Your use is perfectly correct.
Googling “define:decimate” gave me:
1. Kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage of
2. Drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of
Which is in line with most people’s understanding of the term, and makes no mention of the original meaning.
The problem with prescriptivism is that the rabbit-hole goes back to the very beginning of language itself. You could start saying an ekename (from eek meaning other) instead of a nickname, or a napron instead of an apron because these words arose from misdivision. You could revert to pronouncing fir, fur, and verse with different vowels. You could bring back the eo diphthong and say seolfor for silver and geolu for yellow.
But you wouldn’t, because that’s absurd, and I contend that dragging our heels against any language change is equally absurd.
> I contend that dragging our heels against any language change
> is equally absurd.
If by "any" you mean "all", then I agree. With "decimated", the meaning "one-tenth" is still an accepted current definition rather than an anachronism. So I choose to selectively drag my heels and cherry-pick definitions when it comes to words I enjoy.
As I wrote in another reply, I think I just really like the original meaning of decimated and I feel it's a shame to lose that due to popular [mis]use, even if that's just how language works.
[Edited to remove logical argument and replace it with sentimental one.]