Lionel Deimel's Web Log

 

Random quick takes by Lionel Deimel
Lionel Deimel  

Subscribe to posts Subscribe to Posts:
[Atom] [RSS] [E-mail notice for church posts]

 

Most Recent Posts
Table of Contents

Previous Posts

Is Obama Applying for the Wrong Job?
A Punctuation Oddity
Legal Matters
Duncan’s Defense
Duncan Responds
Random Linguistic Oddities
Playing by the Rules?
The Pittsburgh Laity Speaks
What to Call Her
What Didn’t Happen


Archives

Web Log Home

February 2002
March 2002
April 2002
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
December 2003
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
November 2004
January 2005
May 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008

Web Log Home


Lionel Deimel's Farrago

Home
Commentary
Language Notes
Site Map
Search


This page is powered by Blogger. Why isn't yours?

Copyright © 2002-2008
Lionel E. Deimel, Ph.D.
All rights reserved.


April 18, 2002

Things Might Have Been Different

I recently saw a pharmaceutical industry ad on TV that showed a young woman explaining how she had benefited from new drugs taken for her breast cancer. “Ten years ago, I probably wouldn’t be sitting here today,” she said gratefully. I understood generally what she meant, but her statement is curious. After all, ten years ago, she could only be sitting somewhere ten years ago. What exactly was the statement supposed to mean? One possibility is something like: “Ten years ago, there was little likelihood that I would be sitting here today, ten years later.” To an advertising manager, that no doubt sounds too coldly statistical. What may have been meant is: “Had I been born ten years earlier and contracted cancer at the same age as I did, I probably would not have lived as long as I have.” That sentence is hardly a memorable sound bite. Clarity is not always euphonious.


Posted by Lionel Deimel at 8:39 AM
Permalink


April 02, 2002

Gloomy Words

I was invited to attend a Tenebrae service on Good Friday. This is a service associated with Holy Week, at which candles are used and are, one by one, extinguished, leaving the church in darkness. I was disappointed that I was unable to go to the service, as I have never actually experienced Tenebrae. The name comes from the Latin for darkness, which seems appropriate. There are several potentially useful English words, admittedly obscure, that come from the same root. Tenebrific, for instance, can refer to something that tends to darken or obscure, or it can simply mean obscure or dark. One could, I suppose, use this word symbolically, though this use may be uncommon. (Whereas the first speaker was insightful, the second was tenebrific.) This is apparently a newer word than tenebrous or tenebrious, which both mean dark and gloomy. Dark-and-gloominess is, of course, tenebrosity. The most wonderful word of this rather odd lot, however, is the five-syllable tenebrionid, which is someone who avoids light. I must find a use for this word.


Posted by Lionel Deimel at 12:07 AM
Permalink