If an army "requisitioned" a land from a private owner, does it USUALLY mean:
1) the army formally asked for the land, or
2) the army already forcefully took the land?
Dictionaries seem to have both meanings.
Requisition?
Moderator: EC
-
carolgrey
- Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:23 am
- Status: Learner of English
-
Joe
- Admin/Teacher
- Posts: 1794
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:56 am
- Status: Teacher of English
- Location: England
Re: Requisition?
Usually, it would mean that the army took the land (forcefully if the owner resisted) after going through the formal process of issuing a "requisition order" or similar. So there is both formality and (potential) force involved, which is perhaps why dictionaries "seems to have both meanings".
A similar word is "commandeer" where there no formality involved. Here is an example:
- The police car would not start, so the police commandeered my car so that they could chase the thief.
In time of war, I suspect that the army would have commandeered the land from your unfortunate owner since there would have been no time for formality.
A similar word is "commandeer" where there no formality involved. Here is an example:
- The police car would not start, so the police commandeered my car so that they could chase the thief.
In time of war, I suspect that the army would have commandeered the land from your unfortunate owner since there would have been no time for formality.