"casualty"

[Laurence Horn]

...and in the non-military sense, there is also the complement-taking
"casualty (of)", as in "Jones was a casualty of the economic downturn
(the recession-linked cutbacks, etc.).  Usually refers to layoff
victims rather than deaths.  Such victims can be described as
casualties too, but (I think) only elliptically.

LH

At 9:15 AM -0600 10/14/10, Victor Steinbok wrote:
>  OK, OED is not the only dictionary on the planet. The top-level
>OneLook definitions:
>
>>? noun:  a decrease of military personnel or equipment
>>? noun:  someone injured or killed in an accident
>>? noun:  someone injured or killed or captured or missing in a
>>military engagement
>>? noun:  an accident that causes someone to die
>
>Note that there is even an ambiguity between first, second and third
>definitions. There is confusion between second and fourth as well,
>although, obviously, not between first and fourth.
>
>Wiktionary adds two more for "casualty":
>
>>Something that happens by chance, especially an unfortunate event; an
>>accident, a disaster.
>>(UK) The accident and emergency department of a hospital
>
>and one more for "casualties":
>
>>The collective tally of injuries and fatalities of an event.
>
>Note that this /does not/ include the missing or captured. In fact, it's
>been quite some time since I've heard anyone refer to captured soldiers
>as "casualties", but Jon has been around much longer than I and has
>spoken the language longer still.
>
>MWD of Law adds the insurance use (as in "life and casualty"):
>
>>something lost, stolen, damaged, or destroyed
>
>Then, of course, there is Nabokov:
>
>>I wonder where you got your statistics when you say that Theirs
>>executed more people than did the Terreur? I object to this kind of
>>excuse for two reasons. Although from a Christian's or a
>>mathematician's point of view a thousand people killed in battle a
>>hundred years ago equal a thousand people killed in a battle of today,
>>historically the first definition is "slaughter" and the second "some
>>casualties." Secondly: one cannot compare the slapdash suppression,
>>however abominable, of a revolt with the thorough application of a
>>system of murder.
>
>I don't find the use as problematic as Jon does. Perhaps it's a
>generations gap. When did we start worrying about the evolution of words
>into multiple, even overlapping, meanings? I always thought this was
>something we left to the French...
>
>     VS-)
>
>
>On 10/13/2010 7:58 PM, Garson O'Toole wrote:
>>The passage uses the term "casualties" as a synonym for "dead
>>causalities". I think that Jon finds this "very misleading and to be
>>deplored".
>>The use of "casualties" with this constrained meaning is non-ambiguous
>>in this example because the previous sentence says "worthy monument to
>>our dead". It does not say "worthy monument to our dead and wounded".
>>
>>I am reminded of this riddle:
>>Question: A planes crashes on the US-Canada border. Where are the
>>survivors buried?
>>Answer: Survivors are not buried.
>>
>>Here is an similar riddle I just constructed (or remembered).
>>Question: A planes crashes on the US-Canada border. One of the
>>casualties is not buried for more than 50 years. Why not?
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org