This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
she coded on the operating table
glass lite
Mar 22, 2010 23:22
14 yrs ago
2 viewers *
English term

ruined vs. destroyed

English Art/Literary History Military history // World War 2
A sentence on an information sign erected on the site of a village that perished during World War 2.

A passage reads:
"... the XXXX occupation authority conducted a military campaigh to destroy the YYYYYY [resistance] detachment. The village was ruined".

Does the word "ruined" convey the meaning of "destroyed", or is it lighter in meaning and therefore inadequate? My concern is that the word "ruined" is not adequate because almost the entire population of that village was killed that day, the village was destroyed and ceased to exist on that day. It was never rebuilt again.

It is a question of historical accuracy. Any assistance and comments from the native speakers of English will be much appreciated.
Responses
4 +9 destroyed
4 +2 left in ruins
3 +2 ruined is appropriate
3 +1 The evolution of English...
4 obliterated

Discussion

Tony M Mar 25, 2010:
Try turning the sentence round... ...to maybe help you analyse the nuances of meaning better:

"they killed all the people and destroyed the village" or "...left the village in ruins"

With this active construction, it is clear that you couldn't say that "they ruined the village" — when 'to ruin' is used transitively like that, it tends (only) to have the modern meaning of 'to spoil'.

I think Christine's solution of 'left in ruins' is probably the best solution in the end.
Craig Meulen Mar 23, 2010:
Avoiding repetition. Just considering the style, no good writer would use any variation of "destroy" in that sentence because the verb appeared a few words earlier. So "left in ruins" would be much better, "ruined" a suitable but not perfect alternative, imho.
petrolhead (asker) Mar 23, 2010:
Additional context If anyone would like to know more about the context, please send me a short message via my profile and I will give you relevant links an/or send a photo of the actual sign.
And, no, I am not allowed to alter the text on the sign.
petrolhead (asker) Mar 23, 2010:
Context Many thanks for all the entries and the feedback/discussion. Please keep them coming.
Apologies for not having given more context. This was done on purpose for two reasons. Firstly, I was purely interested in the meaning and connotations/implications of the word "ruined". Secondly, I didn't want this discussion to become political nor to offend anyone. Let me just say there are circles who question what has actually happened. The recently erected sign could be construed as an attempt to water down the responsibility of the perpetrators.
Jim Tucker (X) Mar 23, 2010:
"ruined" for natural destruction "destroyed" for (usually deliberate) destruction by humans, generally involving weapons.
David Hollywood Mar 23, 2010:
if you are allowed to change the text, I would suggest "obliterated" otherwise "destroyed"
Anna Herbst Mar 23, 2010:
Contemporary English... There is contemporary language and there is contemporary jargon - let us not get the two confused - the latter has a tendency to change very quickly whereas the former stays.
The media have an important role in the development of language and in the case of the use of ruined as in a ruined village, there is ample proof that the word still has currency in 21st century English. The examples here are about destruction caused by recent earthquakes in Italy, Haiti and Chile:
"We were permitted to walk through the ruined village. Cars lay crushed under collapsed walls in the narrow streets, and the smell of death hung heavy in the air." Reuters Alert 13 Apr 2009, http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/34417/2009/03/13-104738-1.h...
"Haiti's ruined streets filled with bodies, survivors and scenes of desperation" Twitter/Washington Post 14 Jan 2010 http://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/7747740799
"Piñera vows to rebuild ruined state" Financial Times 5 Mar 2010 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71644898-2877-11df-a0b1-00144feabd...
Filippe Vasconcellos de Freitas Guimarães Mar 23, 2010:
Tony... You have a point. If "The village was ruined" must stand alone in the text, then "ruined" could indeed be a poor choice. However, if the extent of the destruction will be described in further detail, I think it's completely appropriate; and I still think the word can convey much more than merely physical destruction. Besides, "ruined" conveys an idea of irreparability, which I think is crucial in this context, as the community never recovered. Destruction can be followed by reconstruction; ruins just become a part of history...
Tony M Mar 23, 2010:
Depends on what you take 'village' to mean... If you think 'village' means the physical structures of the village, then 'ruined' is perfect: we might well say "all the people were massacred and the village ruined"

However, if you consider the village as being the abstract entity that encompasses the physical buildings and the people who live there, the totality of the community, then 'ruined' sits awkwardly, and I would indeed prefer something like' wiped out'.
Stephanie Ezrol Mar 23, 2010:
The word ruined brings to mind ruins like the ruins of Pompei -- a totally destroyed city. So in that sense the word is appropriate. However it does sound wrong in this context because you normally talk about ancient ruins, the ruins being part of an entire culture of which there is now nothing left but the ruins. In the context of one village, destroyed sounds better. "The village was utterly destroyed" is a way of expressing total devastation.

Responses

+9
44 mins
Selected

destroyed

I think that "ruined" is inappropriate as it is not as strong as "destroyed", it doesn't necessarily imply deliberate destruction and certainly doesn't imply that people were killed. You could use "wiped out", devastated ... to avoid repetition. "Razed" means completely flattened and is most frequently used in the collacation "razed to the ground".

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 hrs (2010-03-23 09:03:05 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

"Reduced to ruins" is a possibility. It implies deliberate agency.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 22 hrs (2010-03-23 21:23:22 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Of course, as this is about an existing sign that you cannot change, repetition is not an issue. There seems to be general agreement that the existing wording plays down what actually happened there.
Peer comment(s):
agree Jack Doughty
1 min
Thanks Jack
agree Cilian O'Tuama : ruined doesn't do it for me either. destroyed is better, maybe wiped out, eradicated, annihilated...
5 mins
Thanks Cilian.
agree David Hollywood : I think if the text can't be modified, "destroyed" is appropriate here
2 hrs
Thanks David
agree Tina Vonhof (X) : Ruined can have all kinds of meanings. Destroyed is a sure thing.//Note added: 'reduced to ruins' is also an option but that has a different meaning than 'ruined'.
3 hrs
Thanks Tina// Quite.
agree Christine Andersen : I have just seen your suggestion of ´reduced to ruins´.
9 hrs
Thanks Christine
agree Christopher Crockett : Definitely not "left in ruins" but "destroyed" --obliterated, wiped out, permanently wiped from the face of the planet. Toast.
13 hrs
Thanks Christopher
agree Kim Metzger
13 hrs
Thanks Kim
neutral Craig Meulen : "reduced to ruins" sounds stronger than "ruined" here and therefore better. But "ruined" is imho fine in the context.
15 hrs
Well try this example: The village was really lovely, but now there's a MacDonalds and every other shop is an estate agent or an amusement arcade and it's been ruined.
agree humbird : Agree. "Ruin" does not convey the impact. The village was wiped out from the face of the earth. "Destroy" is more appropriate if you are to compare the two.
15 hrs
Thanks humbird. However either but not both of "wiped out", "wiped from the face of the earth" - not that they mean quite the same thing.
agree Rolf Keiser
1 day 7 hrs
Thanks Goldcoaster
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "Many thanks. The existing wording on the sign certainly plays down what happened to the point of negating the atrocities that have been committed. "
+2
7 mins

ruined is appropriate

"Ruined" conveys the appropriate meaning. It is in no way a "light" word, or one not strong enough to describe such horrific events:

Ruin, destruction, havoc imply irrevocable and often widespread damage. Destruction may be on a large or small scale (destruction of tissue, of enemy vessels); it emphasizes particularly the act of destroying, while ruin and havoc emphasize the resultant state.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ruin?r=75

Thus, you could also choose "destroyed". In my humble opinion, another good option for this specific context would be "razed"; although that would focus solely on the physical destruction, it conveys the intended meaning perfectly.
Note from asker:
Many thanks for your feedback. In the end I did not think I could agree.
Peer comment(s):
agree Anna Herbst : Ruined is indeed appropriate as it implies an irretrievable destruction; a better turn of words in the asker's example might be "The village was left in ruins."
1 hr
Thank you, Anna; that's my reasoning exactly. And rewording the sentence is an excellent suggestion!
agree Craig Meulen : Not the strongest word, perhaps doesn't as good as some of the alternatives. But it's OK.
15 hrs
Thank you, Craig.
Something went wrong...
+1
1 hr

The evolution of English...

'ruined', in the sense of 'reduced to rubble' is perfectly acceptable in a contemporary WW2 context. The problem is that 'ruined' has, in the past half-decade, come to mean 'rendered useless/inoperative', which is less severe, so present-day readers may not get the proper drift of the author's intended message.

So, at the end of the day, it's a matter of deciding whether to use comptemporary (1940s) English or 21st century English. Only the full context of the source text will determine how best to handle the evolution of English as she is spoke (and writ).
Note from asker:
Many thanks for your feedback. In the end I did not think "runined" was strong enough.
Peer comment(s):
agree Tony M
24 mins
disagree Anna Herbst : 'Ruined' in the sense of 'reduced to rubble' is still current in contemporary 21st century English. See my discussion entry.
1 hr
agree kmtext : Ruined is much milder in current usage, more synonymous with spoiled than destroyed: "Having a drink spilt over me ruined my evening." I'd say something like obliterated, eradicated or annihilated would be a better choice.
7 hrs
neutral B D Finch : Older references to ruined villages from the Highland clearances and the English enclosure movement, to my perception, gloss over the violence of how the villages came to be ruined. Is that purely subjective?
8 hrs
Something went wrong...
8 hrs

obliterated

"ruined" gives an impression to a native ear of referring mainly to the impact on the buildings and therefore slightly diminishes the horrific loss of life involved, for which a stronger but still erudite adjective like "obliterated" would be better.
Note from asker:
Many thanks for your feedback. I was only able to select one entry.
Something went wrong...
+2
10 hrs

left in ruins

The incident was obviously a total disaster, but there were traces left behind - ruins.

I agree that ruined sounds a little awkward somehow. Destroyed and obliterated suggest that the village was totally wiped off the map.

But if you have a separate narrative about what happened to the people, you could perhaps use a phrase. Destroyed is fine for the resistance of the peole, and you need another word, since the fate of the physical buildings etc. has a different shade of meaning.
Note from asker:
Many thanks for your suggestion and apologies for not having selected your suggestion. In the end I feel "destroyed" more appropriate in the light of what happened.
Peer comment(s):
agree Oliver Lawrence
7 mins
agree Tony M : Yes, I think you have it here!
2 days 12 hrs
Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search