Los Angeles burned.

[keannu]

Does this "burn" mean "get angry" or "feel emotion"? I think the former.

is73
ex)On the surface, the Los Angeles riot seemed to be about the trial of four police officers. In 1991, a man with a video camera taped a group of four white police officers severely beating an African-American man, Rodney King. The police insisted that King had resisted arrest. However, after viewing the tape, which was played repeatedly on national television, many Americans found this story hard to swallow. In addition, the jury ruled that three of the officers were innocent of all charges. News of the verdict quickly spread, and Los Angeles burned. A look at the riots suggest that there was far more at work than simple anger over the King verdict.

 

[charliedeut]

Hi keannu,

IMO, it means something stronger than just "get angry". Maybe rage (#2) would be more exact.

charliedeut

 

[5jj]

On the limited material available, I would guess that it means that the rioters started fires in Los Angeles.

 

[HanibalII]

On the limited material available, I would guess that it means that the rioters started fires in Los Angeles.

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[charliedeut]

On the limited material available, I would guess that it means that the rioters started fires in Los Angeles.

I hadn't even considered the possibility of it referring to literal fire. I was so sure it was a metaphoric meaning that I discarded it right away.

 

[Rover_KE]

How did you come to that conclusion?

It makes sense to take it literally. Rioters commonly commit arson.

Rover

 

[HanibalII]

Yes, rioters usually do. However considering the meaning of the sentence that follows, I don't think it's a statement to be taken literally.

 

[bhaisahab]

The rioters did indeed start fires in Los Angeles. "Widespread looting, assault, arson and murder occurred during the riots, and estimates of property damages topped one billion dollars". Source: Wikipedia.

 

[SoothingDave]

Yes, there were riots and fires and looting after this verdict. It's literal burning.

 

[keannu]

Many of you said it's the literal meaning, not a figurative meaning like "getting furious", but to be sure, I added the missing parts, completing the whole writing for your possible other judgement.

 

[SoothingDave]

Keannu, I was alive in 1991. I know what the Rodney King verdict was all about. Trust me. How do you think $1 billion dollars of damages happens without some fires?

 

[HanibalII]

Keannu, I was alive in 1991. I know what the Rodney King verdict was all about. Trust me. How do you think $1 billion dollars of damages happens without some fires?

It's all about the context. You can't go to a different source and find additional information that has nothing to do with whats been provided.

I still don't think it's to be taken literally. I think it's about anger. Not literal burning of buildings etc

 

[SoothingDave]

But buildings did literally burn!

Knowing this information, it would be a poor choice of words to describe a city as "burning" with emotion when the outcome of the riots was literal burning.

Not knowing this information you might think it is a figurative burning. But, presented with additional information, the intent of the writer should become clearer.

 

[Amigos4]

News of the verdict quickly spread, and Los Angeles burned.

The sentence must be taken literally because 'Los Angeles' is an inanimate noun and, therefore, cannot possess human feelings. Los Angeles did not 'get angry'; Los Angeles literally 'burned'. The only way to look at 'burned' differently is to write the sentence as: News of the verdict quickly spread, and Los Angelinos burned. Of course, this sentence will immediately miss the intended meaning (anger) and readers will envision people who have been set on fire.

If the author of the sentence meant to convey outrage rather than conflagration he should have been more specific!

 

[Amigos4]

I apologize for composing my thoughts so slowly! I did not see SoothingDave's comment before I posted my thoughts! (Typing was never one of my favorite classes in high school!) ;-)

 

[SoothingDave]

I have to disagree with your point. "Los Angeles burned" (in another context) could refer to the inhabitants and not the inanimate city.

 

[konungursvia]

I think it's clear this is not a metaphor, but refers to the fires.

 

[Amigos4]

I have to disagree with your point. "Los Angeles burned" (in another context) could refer to the inhabitants and not the inanimate city.

In what context are you thinking? ;-)

 

[anreak]

well I'm neither a teacher nor a native, but maybe it's about the general animosity that eventually led to some actual fire during the riots, because Los Angeles didn't burn in its entirely for sure. A large area of London did in the past so it burned (focuse on the fire itself), for example, some cities during the war in the past also burned (fire). London also burned after the death of Mark Duggan, meaning riots and looting with eventual arson. Sorry for giving an opinion but I couldn't help myself.

 

[SoothingDave]

In what context are you thinking? ;-)

How about "Art Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore and Cleveland seethed."