can fire be put down?

[zbihniew]

my friend was preparing a speech for English lesson and she asked me how
to say "extinguish" in English (she asked in Polish though ;)) and I
told her it was "to put down the fire". the teacher didn't like it and
it turned out there was another "to put some-preposition" phrasal verb
and it was suitable. yet, i wonder if "to put down" would be correct too
(and if it is only of regional usage, where is it?).
i just think i must have heard it before and this is why i told her it.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by zbihniew
my friend was preparing a speech for English lesson and she asked me how
to say "extinguish" in English (she asked in Polish though ;)) and I
told her it was "to put down the fire". the teacher didn't like it and
it turned out there was another "to put some-preposition" phrasal verb
and it was suitable. yet, i wonder if "to put down" would be correct too
(and if it is only of regional usage, where is it?).
i just think i must have heard it before and this is why i told her it.

I know what you mean by "put down", but in the case of extinguish the
intent is to "put out" the fire. To "put down" the fire would be to
stop it from spreading and to allow it to gradually burn itself out.

[Alan Horowitz]

Post by Tony Cooper
To "put down" the fire would be to
stop it from spreading and to allow it to gradually burn itself out.

No.

In American, that is called "containing" a fire or "getting it
under control".


By the way, you do not "put on" firefighting gear, you "dress out"
in the "ensemble". Then you put your SCBA on and check that you have
a full 4000 psi of air pressure. The you stand in line at the entry
to the fire and wait to be told to "go on air" by the BA Controller.
You now have ten minutes to accomplish something before your group
will be "relieved" (rotated out) for a tank change.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Alan Horowitz

Post by Tony Cooper
To "put down" the fire would be to
stop it from spreading and to allow it to gradually burn itself out.

No.
In American, that is called "containing" a fire or "getting it
under control".

I don't speak American. I speak American English, and there are no
absolutes of expression in my language. If a grass fire is raging in
my back yard, I'll put it down, contain it, get it under control, put
it out, or stomp all over it.

The poster was a person who does not speak English - of any type - as
a first language. He/she used "put it down" where "put it out" would
be a better choice. Still, "put it down" is not completely wrong, so
there's no point in confusing him/her by being too technical.

[rewboss]

Post by Alan Horowitz

Post by Tony Cooper
To "put down" the fire would be to
stop it from spreading and to allow it to gradually burn itself out.

No.
In American, that is called "containing" a fire or "getting it
under control".

One of the things about this newsgroup is that if you say something like,
"The correct term is..." or "The proper English meaning is..." is that
someone will contradict you and cite about three billion examples to prove
you wrong. The most you can say is, "I have never heard..." or "In Kentucky,
you often hear..." or "According to such-and-such a dictionary..."

Post by Alan Horowitz
By the way, you do not "put on" firefighting gear, you "dress out"
in the "ensemble". Then you put your SCBA on and check that you have
a full 4000 psi of air pressure. The you stand in line at the entry
to the fire and wait to be told to "go on air" by the BA Controller.
You now have ten minutes to accomplish something before your group
will be "relieved" (rotated out) for a tank change.

This is jargon -- that is, those are terms which are used within
firefighting circles. Jargon has its use within certain restricted spheres.
For example, linguists talk about "rhotic" and "non-rhotic" speakers of
English because the phrase "people who [do not] pronounce the 'r' in words
like 'far'" is both long-winded and inaccurate. However, outside of the
domain of linguistics, the term "rhotic" is not understood and, if used,
will sound either pompous or ridiculous. You may dress out in the ensemble,
but that sounds like total nonsense to the rest of us. As far as we're
concerned, firefighters put on their firefighting gear; insisting on
anything else is nit-picking.

[Django Cat]

Post by zbihniew
my friend was preparing a speech for English lesson and she asked me how
to say "extinguish" in English (she asked in Polish though ;)) and I
told her it was "to put down the fire". the teacher didn't like it and
it turned out there was another "to put some-preposition" phrasal verb
and it was suitable. yet, i wonder if "to put down" would be correct too
(and if it is only of regional usage, where is it?).
i just think i must have heard it before and this is why i told her it.

As Tony says, the phrasal verb is 'put out' a fire.

You can also put out a light (originally also a flame, as Willy the Shake
puts it very nicely:-

http://tinyurl.com/2cvyf

(And you can 'put on' a light, but you *can't* put on a fire; you have to
'light' it.)

DCC

[unknown]

On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:12:25 +0100, Django Cat

Post by Django Cat

Post by zbihniew
my friend was preparing a speech for English lesson and she asked me how
to say "extinguish" in English (she asked in Polish though ;)) and I
told her it was "to put down the fire". the teacher didn't like it and
it turned out there was another "to put some-preposition" phrasal verb
and it was suitable. yet, i wonder if "to put down" would be correct too
(and if it is only of regional usage, where is it?).
i just think i must have heard it before and this is why i told her it.

As Tony says, the phrasal verb is 'put out' a fire.

I wonder whether there's some confusion here with "lay down fire" (as
in, say, an artillery barrage)?

Alternately, one can also "bank" a fire (smother it with ash so that
the flames die right down, but enough coals stay hot overnight to
allow it to be rebuilt in the morning). I've never heard "put down a
fire" in any context, but it has that sort of feel to me.

Cheers - Ian

[Gene Wirchenko]

Ian Noble <> wrote:

[snip]

Post by unknown
allow it to be rebuilt in the morning). I've never heard "put down a
fire" in any context, but it has that sort of feel to me.

If I must:

You call that a fire? I have seen pilot lights that were bigger!

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.

[Wakeley Purple]

Post by zbihniew
my friend was preparing a speech for English lesson and she asked me how
to say "extinguish" in English (she asked in Polish though ;)) and I
told her it was "to put down the fire". the teacher didn't like it and
it turned out there was another "to put some-preposition" phrasal verb
and it was suitable. yet, i wonder if "to put down" would be correct too
(and if it is only of regional usage, where is it?).
i just think i must have heard it before and this is why i told her it.

I've heard my fire-fighter bros-in-law talk about "knocking down" a fire,
which means to bring it under control quickly. Might they be talking about
the size of the flame?

I haven't heard "putting down" - it doesn't sound aggressive enough. We "put
down" our children in bed.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 14 May 2004 22:27:42 -0400, Wakeley Purple

Post by Wakeley Purple

Post by zbihniew
my friend was preparing a speech for English lesson and she asked me how
to say "extinguish" in English (she asked in Polish though ;)) and I
told her it was "to put down the fire". the teacher didn't like it and
it turned out there was another "to put some-preposition" phrasal verb
and it was suitable. yet, i wonder if "to put down" would be correct too
(and if it is only of regional usage, where is it?).
i just think i must have heard it before and this is why i told her it.

I've heard my fire-fighter bros-in-law talk about "knocking down" a fire,
which means to bring it under control quickly. Might they be talking about
the size of the flame?
I haven't heard "putting down" - it doesn't sound aggressive enough. We "put
down" our children in bed.

I've only put down two cats, a dog, and a white rat. Actually, the
vet put down the first three animals and I did the rat myself. I
think putting children down is a bit harsh. They can be aggravating,
but they do improve with age.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Wakeley Purple
I haven't heard "putting down" - it doesn't sound aggressive enough. We "put
down" our children in bed.

We put down our dog because it had a painful terminal illness. I would
have trouble doing the same for one of my children.

[zbihniew]

Thanks for all the explanation