The first of these knolls was evacuated without loss

lightyearsway

Member
Chinese
The spur, <---->, consists of three rocky knolls,<--->. These are connected by open necks of ground, <--->

The first of these knolls was evacuated without loss, and the open space to the next quickly traversed.<--->. Lieutenant Cassells remained behind with about eight men, to hold the knoll until the rest had crossed the open space. As soon as they were clear they shouted to him to retire. <--->

<--->. As Lieutenant Cassells rose to leave the knoll, he turned sharply and fell on the ground. <--->. A soldier who had continued firing sprang into the air, and, falling, began to bleed with strange and terrible rapidity from his mouth and chest. <--->


------The Story of Malakand Field Force by Winston Churchill


Why does the second paragraph say "evacuated without loss" while the third paragraph saying something different?
 
  • kentix

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    I think it's saying they left the first knoll and went to the second one without losing anyone. It was on the second knoll that the two soldiers were hit. They were defending the second knoll while the rest of the soldiers were moving over to the third knoll.
     

    lightyearsway

    Member
    Chinese
    I think it's saying they left the first knoll and went to the second one without losing anyone. It was on the second knoll that the two soldiers were hit. They were defending the second knoll while the rest of the soldiers were moving over to the third knoll.
    but the following paragraph writes "Two officers, the subadar major, by name Mangol Singh, and three or four Sepoys ran forward from the second knoll, to help in carrying the wounded off."
     

    kentix

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    Then I guess he's dividing the force into two groups in his mind. The main force, which was evacuated without loss, and the defending force, which was not.
     

    kentix

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    I don't think so, based on the other paragraph.

    But I have noticed in other posts quoting him, that sometimes he writes things that don't seem quite right to my ears. Maybe usage was a bit different 100 years ago.
     

    lightyearsway

    Member
    Chinese
    I don't think so, based on the other paragraph.

    But I have noticed in other posts quoting him, that sometimes he writes things that don't seem quite right to my ears. Maybe usage was a bit different 100 years ago.
    Yes, many words have different usages and meanings from 100 years ago, and this probably applies to all languages.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top