"by" or "through"?

Bernhard Katzer wrote on 13 Apr 2005:
[nq:1]Hello again! Is it acceptable to say "the city was destroyed through an earthquake" or must it be "by an earthquake"?[/nq]
"by"

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
"Adults are sitting there yelling at each other about abstinence, condoms, oral contraception and abortion, and kids

[nq:1]Bernhard Katzer wrote on 13 Apr 2005:[/nq]
[nq:2]Hello again! Is it acceptable to say "the city was destroyed through an earthquake" or must it be "by an earthquake"?[/nq]
[nq:1]"by"[/nq]
Absolutely correct but that doesn't stop most journalists these days from using "in".

Ross Howard

[nq:2]Bernhard Katzer wrote on 13 Apr 2005: "by"[/nq]
[nq:1]Absolutely correct but that doesn't stop most journalists these days from using "in".[/nq]
The one that bugs me is "after": very Radio News.
There's quite a common tendency among casual British speakers to use "through" in cases like this. Not an "educated" usage, of course.

Mike.

Ross Howard wrote on 13 Apr 2005:
[nq:2]Bernhard Katzer wrote on 13 Apr 2005: "by"[/nq]
[nq:1]Absolutely correct but that doesn't stop most journalists these days from using "in".[/nq]
"In an earthquake" meaning "during an earthquake" is also fine, but it says something a bit different. "By an earthquake" identifies the cause of the destruction, but "in an earthwuake" identifies the ti

[nq:1]Is it acceptable to say "the city was destroyed through an earthquake" or must it be "by an earthquake"?[/nq]
"The city was destroyed by an earthquake" is what is idiomatic.

One would use "through" only in a different construction, such as, "*** destroyed the city through the agency of an earthquake."

[nq:1]The one that bugs me is "after": very Radio News.[/nq]
But that's what happens often enough. That's how it happened in San Francisco 99 years ago. After the earthquake came a fire.

[nq:2]The one that bugs me is "after": very Radio News.[/nq]
[nq:1]But that's what happens often enough. That's how it happened inSan Francisco 99 years ago. After the earthquake came a fire.[/nq]
No, that's fine, of course. But the Beeb-speak I mean is about people getting killed "after an accident" or "after a gun-battle". (And what the **** do they expect a battle to be fought with, any

[nq:1]No, that's fine, of course. But the Beeb-speak I mean is about people getting killed "after an accident" or "after ... do they expect a battle to be fought with, anyhow? Some time has elapsed since the late unfortunate Punic Wars.)[/nq]
They need to teach use of prepositions. I keep shouting when I hear that someone's been killed "by a gun". No! He's been killed WITH a gun, BY a person!

[nq:1]Bernhard Katzer wrote on 13 Apr 2005:[/nq]
[nq:2]Hello again! Is it acceptable to say "the city was destroyed through an earthquake" or must it be "by an earthquake"?[/nq]
[nq:1]"by"[/nq]
"By" always in English, both for agent ("The city was destroyed by Caesar's army") and for instrumentality ("The city was destroyed by the earthquake of 1906"). Very UNLIKE, e.g., modern German,

[nq:1]No, that's fine, of course. But the Beeb-speak I mean is about people getting killed "after an accident" or "after a gun-battle".[/nq]
I'd agree on "getting killed", but "died" would work just fine for me.
And typically, the city is destroyed after the earthquake. It takes some time for the waves to travel. It's always fun to feel an earthquake and then switch on the radio. If the wa