<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Razed to the Ground</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dailywritingtips.com/razed-to-the-ground/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dailywritingtips.com/razed-to-the-ground/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:41:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Barbara Sparling</title>
		<link>http://www.dailywritingtips.com/razed-to-the-ground/comment-page-1/#comment-393240</link>
		<dc:creator>Barbara Sparling</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:57:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=4472#comment-393240</guid>
		<description>I always understood that &quot;razed to the ground&quot; actually meant burnt to the ground (i.e. burned completely out so there was nothing left).  However, I can see that &quot;razed&quot; is a corruption of razored so suppose my original concept was inaccurate, although not wrong necessrily</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I always understood that &#8220;razed to the ground&#8221; actually meant burnt to the ground (i.e. burned completely out so there was nothing left).  However, I can see that &#8220;razed&#8221; is a corruption of razored so suppose my original concept was inaccurate, although not wrong necessrily</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Sandifer</title>
		<link>http://www.dailywritingtips.com/razed-to-the-ground/comment-page-1/#comment-281661</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Sandifer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 13:54:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=4472#comment-281661</guid>
		<description>There may be fine distinctions between American and British English, but Merriam-Webster defines raze as &quot;to destroy to the ground.&quot; As an English  major and lifelong writer, I was always taught that as well. Broadcasters in both countries have hijacked the language through overwriting and unnecessary emphasis. Commonly heard on BBC is &quot;surrounded on three sides,&quot; which makes my skin crawl. It has now infested much of American broadcasting as well, &quot;completely destroying&quot; any finesse. Almost all writers now use that description which is also redundant. If it&#039;s not destroyed then it&#039;s damaged. Destruction is complete, rendering the addition of &quot;completely&quot; redundant. Let the language speak for itself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There may be fine distinctions between American and British English, but Merriam-Webster defines raze as &#8220;to destroy to the ground.&#8221; As an English  major and lifelong writer, I was always taught that as well. Broadcasters in both countries have hijacked the language through overwriting and unnecessary emphasis. Commonly heard on BBC is &#8220;surrounded on three sides,&#8221; which makes my skin crawl. It has now infested much of American broadcasting as well, &#8220;completely destroying&#8221; any finesse. Almost all writers now use that description which is also redundant. If it&#8217;s not destroyed then it&#8217;s damaged. Destruction is complete, rendering the addition of &#8220;completely&#8221; redundant. Let the language speak for itself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: umber</title>
		<link>http://www.dailywritingtips.com/razed-to-the-ground/comment-page-1/#comment-268361</link>
		<dc:creator>umber</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:39:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=4472#comment-268361</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think grandma has much of a case for this one. Razed means torn down, or destroyed, but not necessarily all the way to the ground. This isn&#039;t nearly as clearly redundant as the &quot;Capitol building&quot; or &quot;gather together&quot; or &quot;circle around&quot; that we hear all the time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think grandma has much of a case for this one. Razed means torn down, or destroyed, but not necessarily all the way to the ground. This isn&#8217;t nearly as clearly redundant as the &#8220;Capitol building&#8221; or &#8220;gather together&#8221; or &#8220;circle around&#8221; that we hear all the time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Russell</title>
		<link>http://www.dailywritingtips.com/razed-to-the-ground/comment-page-1/#comment-230733</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Russell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:23:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=4472#comment-230733</guid>
		<description>@Daniel: I&#039;m with Deborah&#039;s Grandmother on this one.  It&#039;s like our local Formula 1 commentator who insists on saying &quot;the softer of the two compounds&quot; when discussing tires.  I think &quot;of the two&quot; is as redundant as &quot;to the ground.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Daniel: I&#8217;m with Deborah&#8217;s Grandmother on this one.  It&#8217;s like our local Formula 1 commentator who insists on saying &#8220;the softer of the two compounds&#8221; when discussing tires.  I think &#8220;of the two&#8221; is as redundant as &#8220;to the ground.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Scocco</title>
		<link>http://www.dailywritingtips.com/razed-to-the-ground/comment-page-1/#comment-230585</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Scocco</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:29:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=4472#comment-230585</guid>
		<description>@Paul Russel, I believe the phrase is correct. The &quot;to the ground&quot; part acts as an intensifier. That is, razing a building would imply that you destroyed it, but razing it &quot;to the ground&quot; implies that you completely destroyed it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Paul Russel, I believe the phrase is correct. The &#8220;to the ground&#8221; part acts as an intensifier. That is, razing a building would imply that you destroyed it, but razing it &#8220;to the ground&#8221; implies that you completely destroyed it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced

Served from: www.dailywritingtips.com @ 2012-02-09 03:11:16 -->
