As with most linguistic issues, the answer to this is: It depends.
Generally speaking, being "exposed" to enemy fire doesn't necessarily mean that the enemy is firing at the individual(s) that are so exposed.
"During the 30 seconds it took for the soldiers to run from the latrine to the bunker, they were exposed to enemy fire." This implies shooting was going on, but not necessarily at the running soldiers (the enemy may have been firing at, say, the communications center).
"After a long night on watch, the entire first squad stood up and stretched, unmindful of their exposure to enemy fire." This suggests there is no firing going on, although in this case, I'd like to see "...exposure to potential enemy fire."
If I had to choose, I'd probably side with your friend. Being "exposed" to fire is not the same as "receiving" or "taking" fire.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 04:02 pm (UTC)Generally speaking, being "exposed" to enemy fire doesn't necessarily mean that the enemy is firing at the individual(s) that are so exposed.
"During the 30 seconds it took for the soldiers to run from the latrine to the bunker, they were exposed to enemy fire." This implies shooting was going on, but not necessarily at the running soldiers (the enemy may have been firing at, say, the communications center).
"After a long night on watch, the entire first squad stood up and stretched, unmindful of their exposure to enemy fire." This suggests there is no firing going on, although in this case, I'd like to see "...exposure to potential enemy fire."
If I had to choose, I'd probably side with your friend. Being "exposed" to fire is not the same as "receiving" or "taking" fire.
Just my two cents.
Cheers...