potential flooding of the nearby river

Kacy.H

Senior Member
Chinese
Hello, people. For the bold, can I just say from potential flooding of the nearby Hudson River? Many thanks.

When the construction site was flooded with more than 5 million gallons of water, the building plans changed, adding a state-of-the-art flood wall to fend off future disasters and protect its works from potential water damage from flooding of the nearby Hudson River. (source: 12 Ways Art Museums Protect Their Masterpieces)
 
Last edited:
  • Roxxxannne

    Senior Member
    American English (New England and NYC)
    It doesn't mean quite the same thing. The point is not to protect the works of art from flooding, but to protect them from damage caused by flooding.
    But if you are summarizing the article and trying to reduce the number of words, then it would be fine to leave out 'from potential water damage.'
     

    Myridon

    Senior Member
    English - US
    "From flooding" would be enough. On second thought, you don't need anything. "Flood wall" should be self-explanatory.
     

    Seacláid123

    New Member
    English - Ireland
    What is water damage caused by flooding? But what is water damage?

    My understanding is that water damage would be the effect of remaining water on your possessions or belongings. Examples would be mould, or damage to paint or rotting wood. Usually people refer to water damage in regards to their house or possessions. For example, 'Due to water damage, which caused my wooden floorboard to rot, I have had to replace my floorboard'. In this case though, they are talking about the effect water might have on artwork such as mould or the wood rotting or again, damage to paint on a painting.
     

    Kacy.H

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    In this case though, they are talking about the effect water might have on artwork such as mould or the wood rotting or again, damage to paint on a painting.
    Thanks, Seacláid123. So there may be no water in the museum. It is the aftermath of flooding that damages their collection?
     

    Seacláid123

    New Member
    English - Ireland
    The damage to the artwork would be as a result to flooding, so yes, potentially there could have been no water in the museum. However, for water damage to occur, there would have to have been flooding or water touching the paintings sometime recently.
     

    Roxxxannne

    Senior Member
    American English (New England and NYC)
    "From flooding" would be enough. On second thought, you don't need anything. "Flood wall" should be self-explanatory.
    It's true that one could leave out a lot of the information in this sentence and still convey the general idea. But including the Hudson River and 'potential water damage' makes the description more vivid. The Whitney is very close to the Hudson, which is why the site was flooded during Sandy, so mentioning the Hudson points out the that the location of the museum is significant. And I agree that "potential water damage" is not really necessary, but again it adds to the imagined scene in the reader's mind to include it: wrinkled paper, moldy canvases, watercolor paintings reduced to brown streaks, etc.
     

    Roxxxannne

    Senior Member
    American English (New England and NYC)
    :)
    Well, they're not going to list every possible disaster that could occur from which the flood wall will protect them. If protection from the East River were an issue for the Whitney, which is on the other side of Manhattan from the East River, then New York City could kiss its arts goodbye.

    My point was not that the mention of water damage and the Hudson is an attempt at obsessive, specific detail; the author is trying to enliven the description by mentioning one nearby source of destructive water and to remind us that when we think 'flooding' we shouldn't think just 'water in the basement,' we should think 'destroyed paintings.'
     
    Top