| 'yorz
|
| 904518. Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:32 pm |
 |
|
| Ah - thank you, Strawberry. I didn't think of that, because hope against hope to me is not nonsensical. |
|
|
|
 |
| Celebaelin
|
| 904525. Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:34 pm |
|
|
Wow, such confusion over what seemed to me to be a pretty transparent example.
Hope against hope doesn't, on balance, make much sense does it? Even after you find the biblical context the only reason you can figure out what is intended is because you're already familiar with the expression.
Seems like a puzzling/nonsensical expression to me or perhaps I'm just being deliberately obtuse to justify my poorly considered post. You decide. |
|
|
|
|
| Strawberry
|
| 904533. Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:10 pm |
|
|
| 'yorz wrote: | | Ah - thank you, Strawberry. I didn't think of that, because hope against hope to me is not nonsensical. |
:) You're welcome. |
|
|
|
|
| strukkanurv
|
| 904561. Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:08 am |
|
|
'I believe in God'
Gets me every time. |
|
|
|
|
| Spud McLaren
|
| 905113. Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:27 pm |
|
|
| That one doesn't bother me, but "the Bible proves it" does. |
|
|
|
|
| NinOfEden
|
| 908661. Fri May 11, 2012 4:35 pm |
|
|
People who refuse to use the word 'death'.
They'll spell it out happily enough, or use common synonyms like 'passed on' or 'left us', but they seem to have a fear of the actual word 'death'.
Why is that? |
|
|
|
|
| Strawberry
|
| 908662. Fri May 11, 2012 4:37 pm |
|
|
| i guess it's because they're trying to be polite/ euphemistic. |
|
|
|
|
| NinOfEden
|
| 908665. Fri May 11, 2012 4:43 pm |
|
|
| That's what I mean though, why do they feel they have to do that? It's only death, it's not like pooing or anything. |
|
|
|
|
| Strawberry
|
| 908669. Fri May 11, 2012 4:55 pm |
|
|
| Maybe because people get upset when a loved one has died and being euphemistic seems more gentle/ less upsetting. Or something to do with being embarrassed about feelings and taboo subjects. Also, link here. |
|
|
|
|
| suze
|
| 908678. Fri May 11, 2012 5:30 pm |
|
|
| NinOfEden wrote: | | People who refuse to use the word 'death'. |
Yes, yes, yes. I'm completely with you on that one.
Last year, an old cricketing acquaintance of husband's died. Three separate people sent husband e-mails informing him that the guy had shuffled off this mortal coil, and none of them used the word "died"; every single one said "sadly passed away".
While we we're at it, it is not a massive tragedy when someone who is over 80 dies of natural causes. Of course it's sad for the decedent's family and friends, but it's just not in the same league as a person of 20 being killed in some horrificly violent way. Would the news media please note. |
|
|
|
|
| gerontius grumpus
|
| 908682. Fri May 11, 2012 5:47 pm |
|
|
I always think it's strange and nonsensical at the end of a TV show when the presenter says "I'll see you next week".
No you won't, you don't see me, I'm watching you, that's how television works.
Unless we've somehow slipped into an Orwellian world of course. |
|
|
|
|
| NinOfEden
|
| 908684. Fri May 11, 2012 5:49 pm |
|
|
| suze wrote: | | every single one said "sadly passed away". |
Oooh, that's another one - whenever they report a death on the news, the deathee always 'sadly died today'. Oh, so we're not all having a national party to celebrate then? That's a shame, I was looking forward to a good death-dance. Well, thanks for reminding us all that this particular death is a sad occasion, I wouldn't have wanted to embarrass myself with an innapropriate reaction. -_- |
|
|
|
|
| Spud McLaren
|
| 908694. Fri May 11, 2012 6:20 pm |
|
|
| "First of all" - well, that's logical enough. But "second of all"? That is, "most importantly, except for the first of all", so it really isn't "second of all" at all, is it? |
|
|
|
|
| Dr. Know
|
| 908702. Fri May 11, 2012 6:51 pm |
|
|
| Well it is. of all the items you are going to mention, it is second. |
|
|
|
|
| Spud McLaren
|
| 908708. Fri May 11, 2012 7:03 pm |
|
|
| Fair enough. But it doesn't sound right - the "of all" is pretty redundant. As indeed it is with "first of all", except that it's more emphatic that just "first". But do you need emphasis with "second"? By then the argument's beginning to run out of steam. |
|
|
|
|
