|
|
#2 (permalink) Mon May 31, 2010 5:40 am seized vs captured |
|
|
What is 'it'? _________________ Native English teacher at Mister Micawber's |
|
Mister Micawber Language Coach
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 13014
|
|
#3 (permalink) Mon May 31, 2010 5:59 am seized vs captured |
|
|
Possibly,
In 1484, Scarborough Castle was seized by Richard III. |
|
Haihao I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 26 Oct 2006 Posts: 2471 Location: Japan
|
 |
#4 (permalink) Mon May 31, 2010 6:01 am seized vs captured |
|
|
If it was defended militarily, then use 'captured'; if it was inhabited by non-combatants, then use 'seized'. _________________ Native English teacher at Mister Micawber's |
|
Mister Micawber Language Coach
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 13014
|
 |
#5 (permalink) Mon May 31, 2010 6:16 am seized vs captured |
|
|
| I'd think it was the latter. Actually it was a move-in. |
|
Haihao I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 26 Oct 2006 Posts: 2471 Location: Japan
|
 |
#6 (permalink) Mon May 31, 2010 9:01 am seized vs captured |
|
|
It shouldn't be 'seized' or 'captured' as he didn't take the castle by force.
Richard III and his wife, Queen Ann, resided at the castle for a while, having been granted both the castle and the Lordship of Scarborough in September 1474. He stayed at the castle twice for short periods in 1484, Early in the year, he supervised the outfitting of his ships, and he later returned, to take charge of their rearming and revictualing.
Roman - you will give the wrong impression if you use 'seized' or 'captured' in that sentence, and I suggest you rewrite it. If that is not possible then you would need to write: "in 1484 it was visited by Richard III." for it to be historically accurate. _________________ Cheers m' dears! |
|
Beeesneees Language Coach

Joined: 08 Apr 2010 Posts: 20428 Location: UK, born and bred
|
 |
#7 (permalink) Mon May 31, 2010 9:06 am seized vs captured |
|
|
| Exactly, BN. Actually I was first thinking "in 1484 it was inhabited by Richard III.", but I didn't have that choice. |
|
Haihao I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 26 Oct 2006 Posts: 2471 Location: Japan
|
 |
#8 (permalink) Mon May 31, 2010 9:08 am seized vs captured |
|
|
Ah, the dangers of lack of context...but do we know that's what Roman is referring to? Maybe 'it' means his broadsword or something. _________________ Native English teacher at Mister Micawber's |
|
Mister Micawber Language Coach
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 13014
|
 |
#9 (permalink) Mon May 31, 2010 9:14 am seized vs captured |
|
|
| Then, "in YYYY it was X-ed by Richard III" is all possible. |
|
Haihao I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 26 Oct 2006 Posts: 2471 Location: Japan
|
 |
#10 (permalink) Mon May 31, 2010 16:47 pm seized vs captured |
|
|
| Actually the whole sentence was "Only twice did Bodiam feature in serious conflict when in 1484 it was _______ by Richard III and in 1645 during the Civil War when attacked by the parliamentarian troops of Sir William Waller, which left it partially ruined". Now i see "captured" is the word |
|
Roman45 I'm new here and I like it ;-)

Joined: 09 Nov 2008 Posts: 21 Location: Moscow
|
 |
#11 (permalink) Mon May 31, 2010 17:36 pm seized vs captured |
|
|
That'll teach us lessons all round then.
It would be helpful if you were to post the context rather than a snippet - and we shouldn't second-guess you! :-)
Glad it's sorted. _________________ Cheers m' dears! |
|
Beeesneees Language Coach

Joined: 08 Apr 2010 Posts: 20428 Location: UK, born and bred
|
 |
|
| 'A blue examination paper' vs 'An examination paper in blue color' | "Here is my two cents" vs "Here are my two cents"? |