Reply
Tue 11 Jun, 2013 07:36 pm
Well, it gives me a headache when I have had to type out the word ugly, the aesthetically deformed word the English world ever knows.
So leave it alone and let's talk about another equally boring word: body.
It sounds more dead than alive. It looks funny when you say to your students: Now let us look at the internal workings of human body.
What? The internal workings of human must be vividly alive, and you've used a word more dead than alive to dampen the vividness?
But can we find another to substitute the unpleasant word? O Lord, it is hard to find one. If you don't believe, show me, sir.
"Your students"?
Well they're screwed, if you teach them.
Nothing can be 'more dead than alive' - It has to be one or the other.
And your perception of words having a general tendency to induce positive or negative human responses is not only narcissistic, but self-reflective also.
I hope you are not teaching children this bollux!
@oristarA,
Corpse or corpus could substitute for body, and deformed for ugly, but the perceptions they might elicit are apt to be even less fortunate than the originals.
@roger,
roger wrote:
Corpse or corpus could substitute for body, and deformed for ugly, but the perceptions they might elicit are apt to be even less fortunate than the originals.
That is far from being suitable, Roger.
I meant it is awful to use the word body to desribe living people. But in order to show the internal workings of an living organism, and especially the organism is a living human beng, we have to use the half-dead word body to give a description like this: the internal workings of the human body.
And now you, you said "Corpse or corpus could substitute for body"? That's ridiculous.
You're still doing it.
"half-dead"?
How can something be 'half-dead'? It's either dead or alive.
There are NO degrees of bloody 'DEADNESS'
@mark noble,
"FORM"! Just use the word "FORM"
Change "ugly" to "unsightly"
BUY A FRIKKIN THESAURUS.
But please stop being a teacher...
I always thought ubiquitous was one of the worst . . .
And it's found everywhere!
@roger,
roger wrote:
Ridiculous how?
Can there be such thing as the internal workings in vivo of a corpse?
@oristarA,
Can an internal combustion engine have internal workings? Does the engine need to be running to have them? It is not alive, after all.
@roger,
roger wrote:
Can an internal combustion engine have internal workings? Does the engine need to be running to have them? It is not alive, after all.
See, I've been talking about intelligent human beings all along, not about mechanical devices.
We don't call a broken machine as a body or corpse. Please check out the title of the thread again: body vs. what?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace