beset by
Explanation:
Although it's not really a direct synonym for either, I do think it could validly be applied to both fog and wind without sounding too odd.
It is much less evocative than either of your 2 original words, but does IMO convey the idea of the forest's enduring these 2 things as some kind of unwelcome burden...
A bit like 'beaten by the wind' and 'fog-bound'...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days 21 hrs 24 mins (2005-02-26 07:43:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Piva has raised an interesting point there that got my curiosity going!
To my ears, using \'beset upon\' followed with \'by\' sounded unnatural; I always think of \'beset upon\' as being a stand-alone intransitive verb, and of course although the version with \'by\' is still intransitive, it sounds a bit odd to me paired with \'upon\'; of course, we do say \'beset upon all sides\', but that\'s a different way of using \'upon\'.
I did a quick Google for \'beset upon by\' as aganist \'beset by\', and the former came up with only 866 hits, compared with 275,000 for the latter. Far be it from me to cite Google as an arbiter of good English usage (perish the thought!), but this statistically significant difference may be a pointer. Many instances of \'beset upon by\' are from the Bible, and hence have an archaic ring to them, whilst certain others are archaic or mock-archaic.
I think the underlying meaning of the prefix be- alone renders the use of \'upon\' redundant [cf. German?]
I\'d be most interested to hear what others think?
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days 21 hrs 36 mins (2005-02-26 07:55:41 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Piva has raised an interesting point there that got my curiosity going!
To my ears, using \'beset upon\' followed with \'by\' sounded unnatural; I always think of \'beset upon\' as being a stand-alone intransitive verb, and of course although the version with \'by\' is still intransitive, it sounds a bit odd to me paired with \'upon\'; of course, we do say \'beset upon all sides\', but that\'s a different way of using \'upon\'.
I did a quick Google for \'beset upon by\' as aganist \'beset by\', and the former came up with only 866 hits, compared with 275,000 for the latter. Far be it from me to cite Google as an arbiter of good English usage (perish the thought!), but this statistically significant difference may be a pointer. Many instances of \'beset upon by\' are from the Bible, and hence have an archaic ring to them, whilst certain others are archaic or mock-archaic.
I think the underlying meaning of the prefix be- alone renders the use of \'upon\' redundant [cf. German?]
I\'d be most interested to hear what others think?
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days 21 hrs 38 mins (2005-02-26 07:57:54 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry about the double posting --- finger trouble, I guess! Here\'s what I MEANT to post the first time round...
Here are 2 of the OED definitions that seem applicable in this context:
2 Surround with hostile intent, besiege, assail on all sides.
Freq. fig. of temptations, doubts, difficulties, etc.
4 (gen.) Close round, hem in.
Examples:
2 POPE The lioness..beset by men and hounds.
W. S. CHURCHILL There were no more half-rations..to give to the soldiers, and they were beset on three sides.
A. MOOREHEAD They were so beset by flies and dust they wore goggles and veils.
| Tony M
France
Local time: 07:43
Works in field
Native speaker of:  English
PRO pts in category: 260
|
|
peer agreement (net): +1