That word "carnage"

[vilakins]

Media Watch last night criticised the exaggeration of news reports about Christchurch, and particularly the misuse of the word "carnage" which I objected to; vindicated! Because there weren't any deaths, let alone slaughter, as Media Watch put it.

Petrol-head Greg thinks the misuse of "carnage" comes from Formula 1 where they call every crash carnage, and I'm wondering if the "car" part is to blame. The reporter who used it in Christchurch was standing near a flattened car, but I really don't think he was thinking about that when he said it. I'm wondering what the general perception of that word is. So, a poll.

[Poll #1615401]
[Edit] Since I can't change a poll, add "with horrible injuries" to the last option. I kept it too simple. :-P

Comments

[samantha-vimes.livejournal.com]

Your readership, at least, is not made of stupid.

[pebblerocker]

A high death toll involving animals with fangs!!!

[astrogirl2.livejournal.com]

I clicked "high death toll," but what it really makes me think is, "bits of horrible bloody flesh everywhere."

Mind you, it can certainly be used metaphorically, but I agree with you: that particular usage is just wrong. Or massively, ridiculously hyperbolic, at the very least.

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

None of those; specifically a lot of bloody, flesh-rending injuries/deaths. (High death tolls accomplished by, say, lethal injection or a neat single gunshot per victim need not apply. That doesn't create the required "pile of bloody meat" effect.)

[ultrapsychobrat.livejournal.com]

I checked high death toll, but to me it also indicates a kind of horrible death by war or intent.

[vandonovan.livejournal.com]

I don't even think "A high death toll with horrible injuries" is really carnage. I'd want Massive destruction AND high death tolls (with or without massive injuries). Haiti quake? Yes. CC one? No.

[linda-joyce.livejournal.com]

None of the above, I see poor little Christians, or other social group disliked by the powers that be, being ripped to bloody shreds by a ravenous and probably psychotics group of big carnevours. But I chose the last as closest to it.

[mraltariel.livejournal.com]

I haven't noticed carnage being particularly heavily used in an F1 context; BUT I have seen it in punning titles of car-related DVDs presented by the likes of Jeremy Clarkson. Car-mageddon and Car-nage and so forth. Maybe it has bled into popular use in the carworld from that sort of thing.

[nautile26.livejournal.com]

I went with the edited final choice of "A high death toll with horrible injuries", but I have noticed the term being used for general destruction, and the 20-somethings seem to use the term "total carnage" as a description of the fallout of a heavy drinking session, ie a colossal hangover.

[blencathra.livejournal.com]

Definitely a high death toll with bits of gubbins hanging out all over the place.

Doesn't make me think of cars at all but there again I can't stand Top Gear etc.

[pinkdormouse.livejournal.com]

I've seen carnage applied to multi-vehicle crashes in motor races, where it's much easier to see instantly that bits are flying of cars than whether any of the drivers are injured (and modern racubg cars being what they are, generally no one ends up in hospital). So I think the metaphor works there, but not as a general description of extensive damage where it's already known that there are no major casualties.

[jhall1.livejournal.com]

I recently read a good article about misuse of the language by the media:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/7978041/Strictly-English-by-Simon-Heffer-Part-Three.html

Simon Heffer is a right-wing newspaper columnist, but on subjects other than politics I often find myself agreeing with him.

[pet-lunatic.livejournal.com]

I must be a bit off, because I've only ever come across 'carnage' as meaning 'immense destruction', though I would usually think it involved the destruction of people as well as buildings, and I certainly wouldn't think it had anything to do with cars.

Not that I advocate the misuse of language at all, but since language does evolve and meanings change, if most people now used 'carnage' to mean 'massive destruction' (with or without death) then I'd say it was a fair use of the term, and would argue that 'carnage' now in fact *did* mean massive destruction, by popular vote, so to speak. Like how it's now cool to be funky and funky to be cool. :) However, it's clearly not the case that the word has evolved in this way, since most of the people in your poll voted for the high death toll option! So I've learned something :)

[jaxomsride.livejournal.com]

My vote was for death though to be accurate it should have been horrible, bloody death with lots of body parts strewn around.

[vjezkova.livejournal.com]

I have always connected this word with blood and corpses...
Of course I hah to rely on English fiction and not-fiction. And - a Czech equivalent is "krveprolití" which means something like "bloodspilling".