was burned down

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase 'was burned down' is correct and is used in written English.
It is most often used as a verb phrase to describe something that has been destroyed by fire, as in the following example sentence: "The old barn was burned down after a lightning strike caused a fire."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Encyclopedias

Wiki

Academia

Formal & Business

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

56 human-written examples

The castle was burned down in 1746.

Encyclopedia Britannica

His home was burned down, twice.

The Guardian

The senate house was burned down by the mob.

Encyclopedia Britannica

The following year, however, it was burned down by rioters.

Encyclopedia Britannica

The original monastery was burned down and the monks murdered.

Encyclopedia Britannica

"Half the city was burned down," he told me.

The New Yorker

It was burned down by Serbian officers in 1998.

The New York Times

Our house was burned down, and firefighters were shot trying to put out the fire.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

3 human-written examples

The fort was burned down by Iroquois in 1691, with only the mill itself left standing.

Wikipedia

Randolph was burned down a second time by federal soldiers in 1865.

Wikipedia

Her house was burned down in 1966.

The Washington Post

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "was burned down" to clearly and directly indicate that a structure or object was destroyed by fire. This phrasing is universally understood and avoids ambiguity.

Common error

Avoid using "was burned down" when you want to emphasize the agent that caused the fire. In such cases, consider using an active voice construction like "arsonists burned the building down" to highlight who or what caused the destruction.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was burned down" functions as a passive verb phrase. It describes an action (burning) that was done to a subject, rather than an action the subject performed. Ludwig AI provides many examples confirming its usage in describing the destruction of objects or places by fire.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

35%

Wiki

18%

Encyclopedias

14%

Less common in

Formal & Business

13%

Academia

11%

Science

9%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "was burned down" is a common and grammatically sound passive verb phrase used to describe the destruction of something by fire. As Ludwig AI confirms, it appears frequently in various contexts, including news reports, encyclopedias, and academic texts. The phrase carries a neutral tone and is primarily used to communicate the factual outcome of an event involving fire, emphasizing the destruction rather than the cause. Understanding its function and context helps ensure clarity and precision in writing.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was destroyed by fire

A straightforward description of the cause of destruction.

was razed to the ground

Emphasizes complete destruction, implying that nothing was left standing.

was gutted by fire

Focuses on the internal destruction caused by a fire.

was set ablaze

Highlights the intentional act of setting something on fire.

was engulfed in fire

Highlights the way fire can rapidly spread and consume something.

was reduced to ashes

Emphasizes the thoroughness of the destruction, leaving only ash behind.

was incinerated

Describes the act of burning something completely to ashes.

was consumed by flames

Paints a vivid picture of fire engulfing and destroying something.

went up in flames

A more informal way to describe something being destroyed by fire.

succumbed to the flames

Implies that something could not resist the destructive power of fire.

FAQs

How can I use "was burned down" in a sentence?

You can use "was burned down" to describe the destruction of a building or object by fire. For example: "The old warehouse "was burned down" last night".

What are some alternatives to "was burned down"?

Some alternatives include "was destroyed by fire", "was razed to the ground", or "was set ablaze", depending on the context.

Is it correct to say "burned down" instead of "was burned down"?

While "burned down" can be used, "was burned down" is in the passive voice, emphasizing the object that was destroyed. The active form would require specifying who or what caused the fire, like "arsonists burned the building down".

What is the difference between "was burned down" and "caught fire"?

"Was burned down" implies complete destruction by fire, often suggesting an external cause or significant damage. "Caught fire" simply indicates that something ignited, without necessarily implying total destruction. For example, "The curtains caught fire, but the house "was burned down" the next day by an arsonist."