On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: There is no "English style manual" on the matter, AFAIK. And if there was, would it make a difference to us, if they dealt with the matter inaccurately? "Campaign?" Suggestion. "Pedantry?" I understand "pedantry" very well. The issue does go beyond Wikipedia though. Colloquialisms, while not belonging in an authoritative encyclopedia, nevertheless appear in journalism pieces, as well as colloquially-written encyclopedias. The concept came to mind recently after a spree killing not long ago in the American South. The husband of a woman and infant child who "were killed" (ie. who's "bodies were destroyed") made a statement to the press (paraphrasing) expressing "I know they are in Heaven now." Ie. "in Heaven" means something like "not dead, just relocated." Some TV reporter however went on to say that (paraphrasing) 'people were highly emotional, knowing that they would never see their loved ones again' (directly contradicting the ("former") husband/father just seconds before). Now, in a certain respect, its true that "dead" people will never be "seen" again with the eyes that people typically use to see things around these parts: Their former bodies (not theirs anymore are they?) are destroyed and therefore their abilities to interface with the material realm are gone. But to say that they "are dead" and that their family "will never see them again" is at best tacky insensitive OR; based simply on a misconception that arises from an attempted extraction of meaning from the colloquial expressions. Of course the distinctions deal directly with the concept that "death" itself is simply a misnomer, and I understand nobody wants to go there. Not yet, anyway. But, why are the colloquialisms innacurate at all? Chomsky (a linguist of some sort) put it this way: "*Death and genitals* are things that frighten people, and when people are frightened, they develop means of concealment and aggression." The "aggression" part is a bit aggravated when used out of context, but the concepts are straightforward: The colloquialisms follow concepts of concealment. I am under the principled delusion that The Encyclopedia follow principles such as revelation (compare concealment) and explanation (compare non-explanation). Granted, the spiritualistic/religious view that people live on "after death" in some sort of "after life" is a fringe theory; one that only ~95.2% percent of the world give any credence to. And because microscopes can only show cells, bacteria, prions, etc. the sciencey minority tends to regard such (~92.5%) theories as based in "not fact," (where, by sciencey circumlocution, what constitutes "fact" is itself determined by science philosophy). With all that said, that's not to say that I am promoting a view that "after life" (haw!) concepts be supported; simply that we not use inaccurate (and unimportant) colloquial language which by coincidence can be ambiguous, and use instead language for which even secular and religious concepts are in agreement. Regards, Steve

Jay Litwyn wrote: The issue is a matter of much ado about nothing. Should the Monty Python skit say that it was the parrot's body that was nailed to the perch and not the parrot itself? In the interests of mutual respect an editor who wants to include the word "body" in his writings is perfectly at liberty to do so, and they should be reassured at the same time that those who omit that same word are not doing so to troll the fears of the taphephobics. A general adoption of a formula to always include the reference to a "body" (or a synonym thereto) strikes me as an excess of politically correct theology. Ec