English Language Learners Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for speakers of other languages learning English. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
The building has been derelict for years; several sections of the roof have fallen in.
Is it all right to use derelict in above sentence or it's incorrect and forsaken is better ? Perhaps abandoned would have been better but I don't have that to choose from as this is a question asked in my exam with just the options which I have mentioned above.
Let's examine:
Both words share a common meaning "forsaken, given up by the natural owner or guardian". However, "derelict" is very close to something like "In a very poor condition as a result of disuse and abandonment/neglect" while "abandoned" is closer to "left empty or uninhabited"
A building can be derelict and abandoned altogether.
In your example you say that 'several sections of the roof have fallen in' so in this case it can surely be derelict but is it abandoned? Outside of the question's options in a case where it would be abandoned because of being in a poor condition it would we wise to include both words in the sentence:
However, as you have mentioned that you have only two options, I'd go for "derelict".
For some reason this use of "derelict" feels off to me. I would prefer to use "abandoned", but I'm not certain why. It may be due to what Luke Sawczak points out in his comment, that a "derelict" building is, by definition, falling apart, making the rest of the sentence redundant. "Abandoned" simply means no one lives there, and so it's a natural consequence that the roof has fallen in.
But I think it's more the use of "has been" in the example, which suggests you meant to use the present perfect progressive. You can't "derelict" something, but you can "abandon" it, so "has been abandoned" sounds somewhat more natural to my ears.
Also, an abandoned building can be quickly reoccupied, but a derelict building needs to be repaired before it can go back to not being derelict. To some extent, the present perfect suggests a condition that could have easily changed any time, and a building can't easily go back and forth between "derelict" and "not derelict".
Perhaps this is just my personal (or American) style, and others have no problem with this use of "derelict". Given no other options, it's fine, and better than "forsaken" (which I've never heard applied to a building).
