Feb 22, 2005 10:19
19 yrs ago
English term
DELVING into DETAIL
Native in: Russian 
Works in: English to Russian, Russian, Russian to English, and 2 more.
one verb for 'assailed by' and 'shrouded in'
English
Art/Literary
Poetry & Literature
The Witch had seen a lot of Deadwights that lurked around the Dead Forest, and she had no desire to meet them again. There was no life in them, only black fury which they soaked in every night when the Dead Forest was assailed by the winds or shrouded in the noxious fogs coming down from the Black Mountains.
Dear native English speakers!
Could anyone please suggest ONE COMMON VERB here for both the winds and the fogs? So it'd go like this: "...the Dead Forest was **** by the winds or the noxious fogs..." I'm not sure if fogs can 'assail', but I do need one verb here. Both the winds and the fogs come from the Black Mountains.
P.S. This has been translated from Russian.
Dear native English speakers!
Could anyone please suggest ONE COMMON VERB here for both the winds and the fogs? So it'd go like this: "...the Dead Forest was **** by the winds or the noxious fogs..." I'm not sure if fogs can 'assail', but I do need one verb here. Both the winds and the fogs come from the Black Mountains.
P.S. This has been translated from Russian.
Responses
+5
23 mins
Selected
descended on / engulfed / laid siege to / besieged
when the winds or noxious fogs, sweeping down from the Black Mountains, descended on the Dead Forest.
when the winds or noxious fogs, coming down from the Black, engulfed/laid siege to/ besieged the Dead Forest
maybe ....
when the winds or noxious fogs, coming down from the Black, engulfed/laid siege to/ besieged the Dead Forest
maybe ....
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Laurel Porter (X)
: Very good - also a good idea turning the passive construction around.
15 mins
|
|
Thanks
|
|
| agree |
Syeda Tanbira Zaman
: Not bad
27 mins
|
|
Thanks
|
|
| agree |
Clare C
1 hr
|
|
Thanks
|
|
| agree |
mportal
: 'descended on' is good, because it sounds a bit menacing and could do this either fast (winds) or slowly (fog)
3 hrs
|
|
Thanks
|
|
| agree |
Gareth McMillan
: Like the siege idea. Encircled? Enwrapped?
3 days 10 hrs
|
|
Very poetic for an un-gineer ... ;-))) Thanks!
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thanks a lot, Jerrie! I like 'descended'."
+1
2 mins
Jonathan MacKerron
Native in English
&
English
Retired as of Jan 2019!
Native in: English
Works in: German to English, French to English
Related KudoZ points
:
80
enshrouded
??
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 mins (2005-02-22 10:24:35 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
\"assailed\" here means \"buffetted\", while \"shrouded\" means \"hidden by\"
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 11 mins (2005-02-22 10:30:45 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
\"exposed to\" might fit nicely for both, but not very poetic
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 mins (2005-02-22 10:24:35 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
\"assailed\" here means \"buffetted\", while \"shrouded\" means \"hidden by\"
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 11 mins (2005-02-22 10:30:45 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
\"exposed to\" might fit nicely for both, but not very poetic
+3
34 mins
beset by
Although it's not really a direct synonym for either, I do think it could validly be applied to both fog and wind without sounding too odd.
It is much less evocative than either of your 2 original words, but does IMO convey the idea of the forest's enduring these 2 things as some kind of unwelcome burden...
A bit like 'beaten by the wind' and 'fog-bound'...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days 21 hrs 24 mins (2005-02-26 07:43:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Piva has raised an interesting point there that got my curiosity going!
To my ears, using \'beset upon\' followed with \'by\' sounded unnatural; I always think of \'beset upon\' as being a stand-alone intransitive verb, and of course although the version with \'by\' is still intransitive, it sounds a bit odd to me paired with \'upon\'; of course, we do say \'beset upon all sides\', but that\'s a different way of using \'upon\'.
I did a quick Google for \'beset upon by\' as aganist \'beset by\', and the former came up with only 866 hits, compared with 275,000 for the latter. Far be it from me to cite Google as an arbiter of good English usage (perish the thought!), but this statistically significant difference may be a pointer. Many instances of \'beset upon by\' are from the Bible, and hence have an archaic ring to them, whilst certain others are archaic or mock-archaic.
I think the underlying meaning of the prefix be- alone renders the use of \'upon\' redundant [cf. German?]
I\'d be most interested to hear what others think?
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days 21 hrs 36 mins (2005-02-26 07:55:41 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Piva has raised an interesting point there that got my curiosity going!
To my ears, using \'beset upon\' followed with \'by\' sounded unnatural; I always think of \'beset upon\' as being a stand-alone intransitive verb, and of course although the version with \'by\' is still intransitive, it sounds a bit odd to me paired with \'upon\'; of course, we do say \'beset upon all sides\', but that\'s a different way of using \'upon\'.
I did a quick Google for \'beset upon by\' as aganist \'beset by\', and the former came up with only 866 hits, compared with 275,000 for the latter. Far be it from me to cite Google as an arbiter of good English usage (perish the thought!), but this statistically significant difference may be a pointer. Many instances of \'beset upon by\' are from the Bible, and hence have an archaic ring to them, whilst certain others are archaic or mock-archaic.
I think the underlying meaning of the prefix be- alone renders the use of \'upon\' redundant [cf. German?]
I\'d be most interested to hear what others think?
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days 21 hrs 38 mins (2005-02-26 07:57:54 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry about the double posting --- finger trouble, I guess! Here\'s what I MEANT to post the first time round...
Here are 2 of the OED definitions that seem applicable in this context:
2 Surround with hostile intent, besiege, assail on all sides.
Freq. fig. of temptations, doubts, difficulties, etc.
4 (gen.) Close round, hem in.
Examples:
2 POPE The lioness..beset by men and hounds.
W. S. CHURCHILL There were no more half-rations..to give to the soldiers, and they were beset on three sides.
A. MOOREHEAD They were so beset by flies and dust they wore goggles and veils.
It is much less evocative than either of your 2 original words, but does IMO convey the idea of the forest's enduring these 2 things as some kind of unwelcome burden...
A bit like 'beaten by the wind' and 'fog-bound'...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days 21 hrs 24 mins (2005-02-26 07:43:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Piva has raised an interesting point there that got my curiosity going!
To my ears, using \'beset upon\' followed with \'by\' sounded unnatural; I always think of \'beset upon\' as being a stand-alone intransitive verb, and of course although the version with \'by\' is still intransitive, it sounds a bit odd to me paired with \'upon\'; of course, we do say \'beset upon all sides\', but that\'s a different way of using \'upon\'.
I did a quick Google for \'beset upon by\' as aganist \'beset by\', and the former came up with only 866 hits, compared with 275,000 for the latter. Far be it from me to cite Google as an arbiter of good English usage (perish the thought!), but this statistically significant difference may be a pointer. Many instances of \'beset upon by\' are from the Bible, and hence have an archaic ring to them, whilst certain others are archaic or mock-archaic.
I think the underlying meaning of the prefix be- alone renders the use of \'upon\' redundant [cf. German?]
I\'d be most interested to hear what others think?
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days 21 hrs 36 mins (2005-02-26 07:55:41 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Piva has raised an interesting point there that got my curiosity going!
To my ears, using \'beset upon\' followed with \'by\' sounded unnatural; I always think of \'beset upon\' as being a stand-alone intransitive verb, and of course although the version with \'by\' is still intransitive, it sounds a bit odd to me paired with \'upon\'; of course, we do say \'beset upon all sides\', but that\'s a different way of using \'upon\'.
I did a quick Google for \'beset upon by\' as aganist \'beset by\', and the former came up with only 866 hits, compared with 275,000 for the latter. Far be it from me to cite Google as an arbiter of good English usage (perish the thought!), but this statistically significant difference may be a pointer. Many instances of \'beset upon by\' are from the Bible, and hence have an archaic ring to them, whilst certain others are archaic or mock-archaic.
I think the underlying meaning of the prefix be- alone renders the use of \'upon\' redundant [cf. German?]
I\'d be most interested to hear what others think?
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days 21 hrs 38 mins (2005-02-26 07:57:54 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry about the double posting --- finger trouble, I guess! Here\'s what I MEANT to post the first time round...
Here are 2 of the OED definitions that seem applicable in this context:
2 Surround with hostile intent, besiege, assail on all sides.
Freq. fig. of temptations, doubts, difficulties, etc.
4 (gen.) Close round, hem in.
Examples:
2 POPE The lioness..beset by men and hounds.
W. S. CHURCHILL There were no more half-rations..to give to the soldiers, and they were beset on three sides.
A. MOOREHEAD They were so beset by flies and dust they wore goggles and veils.
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
SirReaL
: yeah!
4 hrs
|
|
Thanks, M'lord!
|
|
| agree |
RHELLER
: could also work
8 hrs
|
|
Thanks a lot, Rita!
|
|
| agree |
Piva
: 'beset upon by the winds and noxious fog' is perhaps better, but I like beset
3 days 13 hrs
|
|
Thanks, Piva! I'm not too sure if one can use 'upon' with beset like that, but if it can be used, then that would be OK too...
|
4 days
not for marking thoughts about 'beset upon'
Well, the subject has a definite fairy tale/fantasy feel to it, and while 'beset upon' is rather archaic it would not out of place to find it in similar contexts, fantasy books, science fiction and the bible :)
Discussion