Post edited 4:23PM – Jan-20-12 by Bob Bridges

It's hard for me to get up much indignation over this, since we say we "cut off" the power, which is certainly within the meaning of "sever".  Yet it isn't the word I'd feel most comfortable using.

When I hear "sever", I usually think of a rope that's been cut in two.  There lie the two pieces, one to my right and one to my left, with a break in the middle.  I think it would be appropriate to say one severs communications, too, with the same mental image in mind.

But when I sever power (so to speak), then on one side of the break is the power, and on the other side is…nothing.  The power has ceased to exist, past that point.  The power line has been severed, but the power itself has been, what? blocked?  Of course I wouldn't allow a journalist to say power had been blocked, either; it wouldn't communicate the concept at all.  At least I'd know what was intended by "sever", even if I quibbled about the exact meaning.

But if I don't like "sever", what seems right instead?  Power was lost?  Power was cut off?  No, not "cut off"; that sounds like it was turned off at the source, at the generating plant.  If I can't come up with a better word any easier than that, maybe I'd better not be too hard on whoever wrote that news item for the talking head to read.

(Don't blame the talking head.  Some of them, no doubt, write their own news; I don't suppose they all do.)