Why is it that every time someone is assaulted, murdered, raped, or otherwise caused harm, the word, "brutal" precedes the necessary word? Can't words such as "assault," "attack," or "murder" stand on their own without added adjectives? Aren't there other adjectives in the lexicon of news people if they feel they must one one?
I dislike using "assaulted" without a qualifier preceding it, like "sexual", since the term can mean so many different harmful activities. The other day, a local politician claimed she was "assaulted" by a rival campaign worker. Without reading further, the first thought would be an attempted rape. But it appears the man, while stressing a point during a heated political argument, touched the woman's arm. That was the "assault."
Geoff, I agree and have always disliked the frequent use of the word "brutal." Besides being used with killing or rapes, it often is used in everyday things, like, "That was a "brutal" winter. I suppose that is "evolving" of the language, but I don't have to like that evolution.
Newspaper articles are good for teaching collocations to ESL students. Certain adj-noun pairs are more common than others: we use "brutal attack" but not "big attack".This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,
