3 ms·
Physical harm? Since when has violence been a body-centric term? Looking at the etymology doesn’t help your case either: > late 13c., "physical force used to i
by gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
Physical harm? Since when has violence been a body-centric term? Looking at the etymology doesn’t help your case either:
> late 13c., "physical force used to inflict injury or damage," from Anglo-French and Old French violence (13c.), from Latin violentia "vehemence, impetuosity," from violentus "vehement, forcible," probably related to violare (see violation). Weakened sense of "improper treatment" is attested from 1590s.
- neltnerb 6y agoAh. Okay, I am talking about how native English speakers read the phrase. I do not think your definition is good enough. If I tell someone "there was violence downtown" to me it carries extremely strong tones of physical injury. If I tell someone "there are riots downtown" to me it carries extremely strong tones of chaotic potential for violence, but not violence in and of itself. I appreciate how you are attempting to use linguistic arguments for your case, which is laudable, but I am talking about how I think it would be read by people without a deeply technical reading of the language.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y agoIf a mob trashed a neighborhood and destroyed stuff, yea I’d call it a violent mob.