destroyed by fire

USAGE SUMMARY

The part of the sentence "destroyed by fire" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use this phrase to describe something that was burned down or damaged in some way by fire. For example: "The village was completely destroyed by fire."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Encyclopedias

Wiki

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

57 human-written examples

It was destroyed by fire in 1967.

The Guardian - Film

Most of the town was destroyed by fire in 1947.

Encyclopedia Britannica

Museum & that was destroyed by fire 3 years later.

The New Yorker

The town itself is mostly destroyed by fire.

Independent

The town was almost completely destroyed by fire in 1796.

Encyclopedia Britannica

In 1623 his personal library was destroyed by fire.

Encyclopedia Britannica

In 1887 it was almost entirely destroyed by fire.

Encyclopedia Britannica

Most of his manuscripts were destroyed by fire.

Encyclopedia Britannica

In 2010, it was all but destroyed by fire.

The Economist

(The house's shell was destroyed by fire last year).

The New York Times - Arts

In 1838 this building was destroyed by fire.

Encyclopedia Britannica

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When describing a scene, be specific about the extent of the damage. For instance, instead of just saying "The building was destroyed by fire", specify if it was "completely destroyed", "partially destroyed", or "gutted".

Common error

While "destroyed by fire" is passive, avoid overuse in a single paragraph. Mix with active voice constructions to make your writing more dynamic. For example, instead of "The evidence was destroyed by fire, and the investigation was hampered", try "The fire destroyed the evidence, hampering the investigation."

Linguistic Context

The phrase "destroyed by fire" typically functions as a passive adjectival phrase, modifying a noun to indicate that it has been ruined or consumed by fire. As Ludwig AI confirms, this usage is grammatically correct and commonly found across various contexts.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

37%

Encyclopedias

32%

Wiki

22%

Less common in

Science

5%

Formal & Business

2%

Social Media

2%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "destroyed by fire" is a grammatically sound and frequently used expression, as confirmed by Ludwig AI. It functions as a passive adjectival phrase to describe something ruined or consumed by fire. Its usage spans across various contexts, most commonly in news, encyclopedias, and wikis, with a neutral register suitable for both formal and informal communication. For variety, consider alternatives such as "consumed by flames" or "burned to the ground", but always ensure the chosen phrase accurately reflects the extent and nature of the destruction. When writing, pay attention to passive voice overuse and clearly specify damage details to enhance clarity and impact.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

burned down

A simpler and more direct alternative focusing on the act of burning.

burned to the ground

Highlights the complete destruction of a structure by fire, leaving only the ground.

consumed by flames

Emphasizes the action of fire consuming something completely.

razed by fire

Uses a more formal term to describe complete destruction by fire.

reduced to ashes

Highlights the end result of the fire, where everything is turned into ash.

incinerated

Suggests a complete reduction to ashes through burning.

obliterated by fire

Emphasizes the total removal and destruction caused by the fire.

gutted by flames

Focuses on the interior being destroyed, leaving the shell intact.

charred beyond recognition

Focuses on the unrecognizable state of something after being heavily burned.

lost to a blaze

A more poetic and indirect way of saying something was destroyed by fire.

FAQs

How can I use "destroyed by fire" in a sentence?

You can use "destroyed by fire" to describe objects, buildings, or areas that have been consumed or severely damaged by a fire. For example, "The historic landmark was "burned to the ground", destroyed by fire overnight".

What are some alternatives to saying "destroyed by fire"?

Alternatives include phrases like "consumed by flames", "burned down", or "razed by fire". The best choice depends on the specific context and the desired emphasis.

Is it better to say "destroyed by fire" or "fire destroyed it"?

Both are grammatically correct, but they have different emphasis. "Destroyed by fire" uses passive voice, focusing on the object. "Fire destroyed it" uses active voice, emphasizing the fire itself. Choose the one that best suits your narrative.

What is the difference between "damaged by fire" and "destroyed by fire"?

"Damaged by fire" implies that something sustained harm but is not beyond repair. "Destroyed by fire", on the other hand, indicates a complete or near-complete loss. The severity of the fire's impact dictates the correct term.