I was going through a text about ancient civilization. There, I found a sentence which says, "Some ancient human being recognized even cannibalism." After reading that sentence, I started to think that, as the word 'cannibalism' is disgusting, the writer would had written this sentence in another way e.g. "Eating human flesh too was practiced by some human beings in ancient period." What do you think about which one of them sounds better--- 'cannibalism' or 'eating human flesh'?
closed as primarily opinion-based by user140086, Sven Yargs, choster, Edwin Ashworth, Vilmar Dec 14 '15 at 9:29
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Cannibalism refers to the eating of one's own kind. Many animal species practice cannibalism. But I agree with Rathony; cannibalism and "eating human flesh" are obviously synonymous in the context you suggested. Cannibalism is thus the logical choice. And how could it possibly sound more disgusting than the more literal "eating human flesh"?
"Some ancient human being recognized even cannibalism."
"Eating human flesh too was practiced by some human beings in ancient period."
(1) and (2) don't even mean the same thing.
(1) could mean a particular ancient human being (let's call him Fred) accepted the practice of cannibalism.
(1) could mean Fred could watch another human being eating yet a third human being and say, "Hey, that's cannibalism".
(2) just means they did it (Fred, Barney, whoever). Recognized or not.
Context would probably shed more light on (1)