Can anybody defend the use of this word in the BBC news
tonight?
" Last Updated: Sunday, 1 June, 2003, 03:40 GMT 04:40 UK
Email this to a friend Printable version
Giant tree destroyed by fire
By Phil Mercer
BBC correspondent in Sydney
El Grande fell victim to a burn-off to clear undergrowth [pic courtesy of Wilderness Society]
An independent report has confirmed Australian environmentalists' claims that fire has devastated Australia's tallest tree on the island of Tasmania."
The tree was killed, but that's not news. Gotta have a word
that's more impressive. Even if absurd.
The usage is unusual but not incorrect. I'd expect them to say "has devastated the Tasmanian forest and destroyed the tallest tree".
This is one of those terms, like awesome, that have been weakened by excessive hyperbole. It does seem to be holding on, as Pfranz's example shows but.
Bullshit. The tree is still standing, with no visible damage, it's just dead. If it had been extensively charred,
and had many limbs burned off, then "devastated" would not be so silly.
it's just dead
Oh, well. If that's all then I should think that decimated should do the trick.
Tsk, tsk, Faldo. Don't set him off, for Gawd's sake!
Re:The tree is still standing, with no visible damage, it's just dead.
have i missed something in the nature of trees? isn't it common for dead trees to remain upright for many years after their death (and contrary wize, some trees that fall as a result of storms, have enough root structure intact, that they don't die outright..) so a fallen tree isn't always a dead tree, and standing tree isn't always a live one..
i think too, that devastated would cover a large area (the forest was devastated,)...but.
Dear F&C, since words don't matter, you shouldn't mind bei;ng called shitheads.
Note: I didn't call you that, just said you shouldn't mind if somebody did.
Dr Bill!!! You eat with that same mouth!?
Ah well, to crossthread just a little, he probably typed it with a shiteating grin ...
I am genuinely disappointed that this board has so degenerated into a chat site that there has been so little interest in discussing the egregiously poor choice of word for the killing of that national treasure tree.
The BBC ought be a model of good word choice.
Forty two vies of the thread, and not a single suggextion of a better word. Truly, I'm disappointed. I carefully
avoid saying "I'm devastated".
El Grande fell victim to a burn-off to clear undergrowth [pic courtesy of Wilderness Society]
"I am genuinely disappointed that this board has so degenerated into a chat site that there has been so little interest in discussing the egregiously poor choice of word for the killing of that national treasure tree."
Right! I'm on it chief!
An independent report has confirmed Australian environmentalists' claims that fire has devastated Australia's tallest tree on the island of Tasmania."
An independent report has confirmed Australian environmentalists' claims that fire has put to an end the long life and venerated existance that was Australia's tallest tree on the island of Tasmania."
Thank you, Tross. Distinctly better than the original.
I'll admit I haven't been able to think of a single word to replace "devastated" that satisfies me. Let's hear some more efforts.
the egregiously poor choice of word for the killing
"An independent report has confirmed Australian environmentalists' claims that fire has killed Australia's tallest tree on the island of Tasmania."
And nothing misspelled!
[sniff - I remember when egregious was a good thing - sniff]
sniff - I remember when egregious was a good thing - sniff]
Dear Faldage: in which previous incarnation was that?
I'm more archaic than you are, and it was long before my time that it meant "remarkable", which is not necessarily a good thing.
which previous incarnation
Latin classes at Hal's Diner in the previous millennium.
An independent report has confirmed Australian environmentalists' claims that fire has devastated Australia's tallest tree on the island of Tasmania."
Just considering the sentence on its own, it doesn’t really tell us that the tree is dead. It is devastated but, if that is the sum total of the environmentalists' claims and the other statements were made by the journalists, then it could be still alive. Many trees are quite resistant to fire I believe. Until we know the truth it is hard to suggest an alternative word to use. What kind of tree was/is it anyway? Was it Australia’s tallest tree that happen(s)ed to be on the island of Tasmania, or is/was it the tallest tree on the Australian island of Tasmania? That isn’t really truly clear either.
For a more dramatic and definite statement I suggest:
An independent report has confirmed Australian environmentalists' claims that fire has incinerated Australia's tallest tree on the island of Tasmania."
"incinerated" isn't accurate either. It just got overheated enough to cause what I suppose was the cambium just under the bark to be cooked, but not even charred.
Well, OK. But what you posted at the top of the thread doesn't say that. You have additional knowledge.
Only the information that was in the BBC news item. Apparently the fire though out of control was not hot enough to do more than cook the juicy living part of the tree. The picture with the story was evidently a file photograph showing the tree several years ago.
cook the juicy living part of the tree
I should think that I would find having my cambium cooked pretty devastating.
Deaf Faldage: your word choice is no credit to you. You qualify as a verbivile.
>Deaf Faldage: your word choice is no credit to you. You qualify as a verbivile.
perhaps he can blame it on his deafness (sorry to hear about that, F.)
No extra charge for amusing typos.