"Harvest"
Those to the left of the philosophical dividing aisle have no monopoly on my semantic hit-list, not by any means. They actually have my sympathies, provided they can occassionally heft a dictionary and describe the world around them with greater accuracy. Oh, no, it is one thing to obfuscate one's own feelings; describing one's wanton destruction of the world about them with happy, rosy words invites a sound bitch-slapping.
I must preface with an admition: I hold no ill-will against most of those in the timber trade. I myself worked in a mill where trees were cut, dried, peeled, glued, pressed, sanded, and in all ways possible misshapen from forest denizen to a stack of flat building products.
But reading the paper one day (years ago), I stumbled once again upon a word that seemed awkward or alien in its usage, and sought clarification in the Tome. What I found, well, pissed me off, and prompted me to write a letter venting to the newspaper. I have since lost that letter (this was, remember, several years ago), but will attempt to recreate it as best as possible below.
To the Editor:
Once again, I read in your paper about the debate over old-growth forests. Your writer used the term "harvest" in regard to the clear-cutting of trees in these forests. This is inappropriate.
A "harvest", according to Webster, refers to the "reaping of a crop"; a "crop", according to the same authority, is "planted" and therefore "planned". By that interpretation, therefore, one cannot "harvest" a plant that one did not sow.
Nobody planted natural stands of forest. When quoting those in the industry, please note this inaccuracy with (sic). Your own reporters should likewise avoid the incorrect usage. For a better word to use in describing an old-growth clearcut, let me suggest "raze": "to destroy; to level to the ground."
(The letter was not published, but I did notice a marked drop in the paper's misuse of the word, at least for two years after the fact. After that I moved and let my subscription lapse.)
I must preface with an admition: I hold no ill-will against most of those in the timber trade. I myself worked in a mill where trees were cut, dried, peeled, glued, pressed, sanded, and in all ways possible misshapen from forest denizen to a stack of flat building products.
But reading the paper one day (years ago), I stumbled once again upon a word that seemed awkward or alien in its usage, and sought clarification in the Tome. What I found, well, pissed me off, and prompted me to write a letter venting to the newspaper. I have since lost that letter (this was, remember, several years ago), but will attempt to recreate it as best as possible below.
To the Editor:
Once again, I read in your paper about the debate over old-growth forests. Your writer used the term "harvest" in regard to the clear-cutting of trees in these forests. This is inappropriate.
A "harvest", according to Webster, refers to the "reaping of a crop"; a "crop", according to the same authority, is "planted" and therefore "planned". By that interpretation, therefore, one cannot "harvest" a plant that one did not sow.
Nobody planted natural stands of forest. When quoting those in the industry, please note this inaccuracy with (sic). Your own reporters should likewise avoid the incorrect usage. For a better word to use in describing an old-growth clearcut, let me suggest "raze": "to destroy; to level to the ground."
(The letter was not published, but I did notice a marked drop in the paper's misuse of the word, at least for two years after the fact. After that I moved and let my subscription lapse.)