| Author |
Message |
cruciverbalist
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:39 am
Post subject: Live Fire |
|
|
I was listening to the radio and heard a reporter announce that
troops had come under "live" fire. Say what? Am I missing something
here? Is it possible for troops to come under "prerecorded" fire?
Jack |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:41 am
Post subject: Re: Live Fire |
|
|
cruciverbalist <readingnewsgroups@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
| Quote: | I was listening to the radio and heard a reporter announce that
troops had come under "live" fire. Say what? Am I missing something
here? Is it possible for troops to come under "prerecorded" fire?
|
"Live" doesn't always mean "happening now" - it can also mean "not
inactive" which has a similar meaning to "alive". In terms of
weapons fire, "live" is the opposite of "blank". That is, the guns
were firing real bullets, not blanks.
We also use this form of "live" for electricity cables, to indicate
if voltage is present.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
Post subject: Re: Live Fire |
|
|
the Omrud wrote:
| Quote: | cruciverbalist spake thusly:
I was listening to the radio and heard a reporter announce that
troops had come under "live" fire. Say what? Am I missing something
here? Is it possible for troops to come under "prerecorded" fire?
"Live" doesn't always mean "happening now" - it can also mean "not
inactive" which has a similar meaning to "alive". In terms of
weapons fire, "live" is the opposite of "blank". That is, the guns
were firing real bullets, not blanks.
We also use this form of "live" for electricity cables, to indicate
if voltage is present.
|
But you have to do something -- touch the wire, for instance -- to have
it perform as "live," don't you?
As with the OP, speaking of "live" fire in war usage seems strange to
me. Blanks can't be used very much, if at all. "Under fire" would say it
all, I think.
--
Maria Conlon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blue Hornet
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:19 am
Post subject: Re: Live Fire |
|
|
Maria Conlon wrote:
| Quote: | the Omrud wrote:
cruciverbalist spake thusly:
I was listening to the radio and heard a reporter announce that
troops had come under "live" fire. Say what? Am I missing something
here? Is it possible for troops to come under "prerecorded" fire?
"Live" doesn't always mean "happening now" - it can also mean "not
inactive" which has a similar meaning to "alive". In terms of
weapons fire, "live" is the opposite of "blank". That is, the guns
were firing real bullets, not blanks.
We also use this form of "live" for electricity cables, to indicate
if voltage is present.
But you have to do something -- touch the wire, for instance -- to have
it perform as "live," don't you?
As with the OP, speaking of "live" fire in war usage seems strange to
me. Blanks can't be used very much, if at all. "Under fire" would say it
all, I think.
--
Maria Conlon
|
I think this is a case of an over-excited "live on the scene"
correspondent; a good writer after the fact (certainly an even average
editor) would have avoided that usage. The troops came "under fire",
meaning "someone shooting at them". That could indicate either slow
and deliberate sniper fire (seemingly random) or scattered volleys
(from minimal and/or disorganized opposition) to heavy fire from
concentrated infantry and/or artillery.
Otherwise, troops in Basic Training come under "live fire" on courses
where there really is live ammunition fired, but it's deliberately set
over their heads, to give them a more-or-less non-lethal experience.
Non-lethal if they do keep their heads down, that is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:21 am
Post subject: Re: Live Fire |
|
|
"Jack":
| Quote: | I was listening to the radio and heard a reporter announce that
troops had come under "live" fire. Say what? Am I missing something
here?
|
I saw the same expression in reports about the cruise ship that
was attacked yesterday, and was equally surprised.
"David":
| Quote: | In terms of weapons fire, "live" is the opposite of "blank".
That is, the guns were firing real bullets, not blanks.
We also use this form of "live" for electricity cables, to indicate
if voltage is present.
|
Maria Conlon:
| Quote: | But you have to do something -- touch the wire, for instance --
to have it perform as "live," don't you?
|
No. But just as with "live fire", the term implies danger or at
least that one should be cautious. We generally use it only when
there's enough electricity to produce at least an unpleasant
shock; we don't speak of the contacts of a AAA battery, or someone
who just stroked a cat in dry air, as being "live". Because of
this implication, it mostly arises in contexts where you're
*talking* about touching the wire, or want the implication that
you shouldn't.
| Quote: | As with the OP, speaking of "live" fire in war usage seems strange
to me . Blanks can't be used very much, if at all. "Under fire"
would say it all, I think.
|
Agreed. It makes sense in certain specific contexts, like talking
about live-fire combat training exercises or new troops and their
first combat experience, but in a general military or crime context,
live fire is the default.
Having said that, now that it seems to have come up twice in such a
short time, I can easily see the phrase becoming the latest fad in
war reporting and starting a thread in this newsgroup every 3 to 6
months for as long as it people go on fighting wars.
--
Mark Brader "Doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing."
Toronto "Doing *anything* is worse than doing nothing!"
msb@vex.net -- Lynn & Jay: YES, PRIME MINISTER
My text in this article is in the public domain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:37 am
Post subject: Re: Live Fire |
|
|
Mark Brader <msb@vex.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "Jack":
I was listening to the radio and heard a reporter announce that
troops had come under "live" fire. Say what? Am I missing something
here?
I saw the same expression in reports about the cruise ship that
was attacked yesterday, and was equally surprised.
|
However, I just checked uses of "live fire" at Google News and did not
find any like that, not about the piracy attempt or anything else.
| Quote: |
"David":
In terms of weapons fire, "live" is the opposite of "blank".
That is, the guns were firing real bullets, not blanks.
|
Over 95% of the first 100 hits for "live fire" were followed by:
exercises
drill
training
simulator
tests
demonstration
range (for testing or training at a military base)
The other couple of hits were about fires or were inscrutable.
Anyway, it doesn't seem to be any sort of a trend.
--
Best - Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:32 am
Post subject: Re: Live Fire |
|
|
"Jack":
| Quote: | I was listening to the radio and heard a reporter announce that
troops had come under "live" fire. Say what? Am I missing something
here?
|
Mark Brader:
| Quote: | I saw the same expression in reports about the cruise ship that
was attacked yesterday, and was equally surprised.
|
Donna Richoux:
| Quote: | However, I just checked uses of "live fire" at Google News and did
not find any like that, not about the piracy attempt or anything else.
|
I misremembered. I was thinking of this article:
<http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2201042005>
This contains the same remarkable use of "live", but the specific
phrase is "live bullets"; and it's the only one in Google News that
uses this phrase together with the name of the ship.
| Quote: | Anyway, it doesn't seem to be any sort of a trend.
|
Not *yet*. Just you wait! 
--
Mark Brader | "You read war books -- people shooting each other,
Toronto | people bombing each other, people torturing each
msb@vex.net | other. I like to look at people doing, uh, naughty
| things to each other!" -- Ria, "Butterflies"
My text in this article is in the public domain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Durkin
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:18 am
Post subject: Re: Live Fire |
|
|
"cruciverbalist" <readingnewsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:43703fc5.16439108@newsgroups.comcast.net...
| Quote: | I was listening to the radio and heard a reporter announce that
troops had come under "live" fire. Say what? Am I missing something
here? Is it possible for troops to come under "prerecorded" fire?
|
I assume that the troups under discussion had determined that they were
being fired upon. They were "under fire". When not under fire, (live
fire, that is) they might duck and cover, etc, only to discover that a
car was backfiring, or somewhere in the neighborhood someone was
celebrating, or shooting at other people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodi
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:06 am
Post subject: Re: Live Fire |
|
|
Mark Brader wrote:
| Quote: |
"Jack":
I was listening to the radio and heard a reporter announce that
troops had come under "live" fire. Say what? Am I missing something
here?
I saw the same expression in reports about the cruise ship that
was attacked yesterday, and was equally surprised.
"David":
In terms of weapons fire, "live" is the opposite of "blank".
That is, the guns were firing real bullets, not blanks.
We also use this form of "live" for electricity cables, to indicate
if voltage is present.
Maria Conlon:
But you have to do something -- touch the wire, for instance --
to have it perform as "live," don't you?
No. But just as with "live fire", the term implies danger or at
least that one should be cautious. We generally use it only when
there's enough electricity to produce at least an unpleasant
shock; we don't speak of the contacts of a AAA battery, or someone
who just stroked a cat in dry air, as being "live". Because of
this implication, it mostly arises in contexts where you're
*talking* about touching the wire, or want the implication that
you shouldn't.
It's an AA battery, but don't touch the cap next to it in those |
disposable film cameras. It don't give you live fire like standing on
concrete and touching the wrong side of a bare transformer wire plugged
into a wall outlet, although it can give you a kick nevertheless.
--
Why do sequels seem not to continue the story but instead retell the
original? I still want to see a real sequel to "Universal Soldier" where
the new girlfriend and the reanimated soldier who has to take a break
and recharge in a special recharge machine every few days, and might
melt if he gets too excited, learns to live within his limitations,
perhaps getting a job selling life insurance nine to five while starting
his own country western band as an evening outlet, finally taking the
time out in his life for romance and smelling the lovely flowers. Have
some guts Hollywood, turn a full out violent action movie into a woman
friendly romantic comedy sequel! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodi
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:21 am
Post subject: Re: Live Fire |
|
|
Pat Durkin wrote:
| Quote: |
I assume that the troups under discussion had determined that they were
being fired upon. They were "under fire". When not under fire, (live
fire, that is) they might duck and cover, etc, only to discover that a
car was backfiring, or somewhere in the neighborhood someone was
celebrating, or shooting at other people.
In film at least, there is a sort of he-man intensity of respect for the |
crazy person who doesn't duck, the Robert Duvall in "Apocalypse Now",
say. Or maybe the dumb but lucky person who doesn't duck, say Forrest
Gump. Some scene in the previews of the new "Jarhead" suggests something
akin to both as the main character appears to contemplate a la Rodin's
The Thinker all the while artillery shells burst black fire and spatter
knife sharp shrapnel not fifty feet away.
--
Why do sequels seem not to continue the story but instead retell the
original? I still want to see a real sequel to "Universal Soldier" where
the new girlfriend and the reanimated soldier who has to take a break
and recharge in a special recharge machine every few days, and might
melt if he gets too excited, learns to live within his limitations,
perhaps getting a job selling life insurance nine to five while starting
his own country western band as an evening outlet, finally taking the
time out in his life for romance and smelling the lovely flowers. Have
some guts Hollywood, turn a full out violent action movie into a woman
friendly romantic comedy sequel! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:45 am
Post subject: Re: Live Fire |
|
|
Mark Brader:
| Quote: | We generally use ["live"] only when
there's enough electricity to produce at least an unpleasant
shock; we don't speak of the contacts of a AAA battery, or someone
who just stroked a cat in dry air, as being "live".
|
Bill Bonde:
| Quote: | It's an AA battery,
|
*I* was talking about a AAA.
| Quote: | but don't touch the cap next to it in those disposable film cameras.
|
Disposable camera? Wouldn't dream of it.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | Any company large enough to have a research lab
msb@vex.net | is large enough not to listen to it. --Alan Kay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:47 am
Post subject: Re: Live Fire |
|
|
[I may have just posted an incomplete version of this]
Mark Brader:
| Quote: | We generally use ["live"] only when
there's enough electricity to produce at least an unpleasant
shock; we don't speak of the contacts of a AAA battery, or someone
who just stroked a cat in dry air, as being "live".
|
Bill Bonde:
| Quote: | It's an AA battery,
|
*I* was talking about a AAA.
| Quote: | but don't touch the cap next to it in those disposable film cameras.
|
Disposable camera? Wouldn't dream of it.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | Any company large enough to have a research lab
msb@vex.net | is large enough not to listen to it. --Alan Kay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:59 am
Post subject: Re: Live Fire |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
| Quote: | Pat Durkin wrote:
I assume that the troups under discussion had determined that they
were being fired upon. They were "under fire". When not under
fire, (live fire, that is) they might duck and cover, etc, only to
discover that a car was backfiring, or somewhere in the
neighborhood
someone was celebrating, or shooting at other people.
|
In BrE at least, there is a certain confusion between "live", "ball",
and "blank" rounds. Really, ball and blank are both "live"
ammunition, as distinct from empty, or discharged, cases; but what is
often called a live-firing exercise is for good reason a bloody sight
scarier than a blank-firing one. You should treat with caution
anything written by my esteemed fellow-NUJ-members about firearms,
small, large, or thermonuclear (or anything else, of course).
| Quote: |
In film at least, there is a sort of he-man intensity of respect
for
the crazy person who doesn't duck, the Robert Duvall in "Apocalypse
Now", say. Or maybe the dumb but lucky person who doesn't duck, say
Forrest Gump.[...]
|
Churchill (from memory): "There is nothing more exhilarating than
being shot at without effect."
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodi
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:32 am
Post subject: Re: Live Fire |
|
|
Mark Brader wrote:
| Quote: |
Mark Brader:
We generally use ["live"] only when
there's enough electricity to produce at least an unpleasant
shock; we don't speak of the contacts of a AAA battery, or someone
who just stroked a cat in dry air, as being "live".
Bill Bonde:
It's an AA battery,
*I* was talking about a AAA.
Like there's any difference in its ability to bite you. |
| Quote: | but don't touch the cap next to it in those disposable film cameras.
Disposable camera? Wouldn't dream of it.
I found it partly run over on the road so I took it apart. Might as well |
get a free alk battery and the charge/flash circuit is rather fun if
also unsafe to play with without thinking that there is a serious jolt
available.
--
Why do sequels seem not to continue the story but instead retell the
original? I still want to see a real sequel to "Universal Soldier" where
the new girlfriend and the reanimated soldier who has to take a break
and recharge in a special recharge machine every few days, and might
melt if he gets too excited, learns to live within his limitations,
perhaps getting a job selling life insurance nine to five while starting
his own country western band as an evening outlet, finally taking the
time out in his life for romance and smelling the lovely flowers. Have
some guts Hollywood, turn a full out violent action movie into a woman
friendly romantic comedy sequel! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Durkin
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:06 am
Post subject: Re: Live Fire |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<John.Methuen@magersfontein.co.uk> wrote in message
news:436FB75B.B2C73426@magersfontein.co.uk...
| Quote: |
Pat Durkin wrote:
I assume that the troups under discussion had determined that they
were
being fired upon. They were "under fire". When not under fire,
(live
fire, that is) they might duck and cover, etc, only to discover that
a
car was backfiring, or somewhere in the neighborhood someone was
celebrating, or shooting at other people.
In film at least, there is a sort of he-man intensity of respect for
the
crazy person who doesn't duck, the Robert Duvall in "Apocalypse Now",
say. Or maybe the dumb but lucky person who doesn't duck, say Forrest
Gump. Some scene in the previews of the new "Jarhead" suggests
something
akin to both as the main character appears to contemplate a la Rodin's
The Thinker all the while artillery shells burst black fire and
spatter
knife sharp shrapnel not fifty feet away.
|
But don't you think that people who ignore live fire invite fragging and
friendly fire? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in