"with bowel cancer." I've now heard it at least twice.
It's rather sloppy condensing, IMO: there is at least a trace of
implication that it was the diagnosis that was fatal, which of course it >wasn't.
(Sorry, not technical, so OT really for this 'group. Unless it's the >technicalities of language ..."
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:07:38 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
"with bowel cancer." I've now heard it at least twice.
It's rather sloppy condensing, IMO: there is at least a trace of >>implication that it was the diagnosis that was fatal, which of course it >>wasn't.
(Sorry, not technical, so OT really for this 'group. Unless it's the >>technicalities of language ..."
The sequence of events is correct, if not the causation.
Agreed. I understand the problem - they want to include the fact that he
was diagnosed. And all the alternative ways of doing so without some
hint of implied causation involve using more words, which I can see they wanted to avoid doing. It's just that that form gives me momentary
confusion. (Like many aspects of - I think only relatively modern - reporting.)
On 24/07/2023 16:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Agreed. I understand the problem - they want to include the fact that he
was diagnosed. And all the alternative ways of doing so without some
hint of implied causation involve using more words, which I can see they
wanted to avoid doing. It's just that that form gives me momentary
confusion. (Like many aspects of - I think only relatively modern -
reporting.)
The headline story on the BBC News page very carefully says "He died
nine years after being diagnosed with cancer", "Peacefully, surrounded
by his family" almost as if someone in the chain doesn't want to confirm
that what killed him was or was not cancer.
On 24/07/2023 18:07, John Williamson wrote:
On 24/07/2023 16:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Agreed. I understand the problem - they want to include the fact that he >>> was diagnosed. And all the alternative ways of doing so without some
hint of implied causation involve using more words, which I can see they >>> wanted to avoid doing. It's just that that form gives me momentary
confusion. (Like many aspects of - I think only relatively modern -
reporting.)
The headline story on the BBC News page very carefully says "He died
nine years after being diagnosed with cancer", "Peacefully, surrounded
by his family" almost as if someone in the chain doesn't want to
confirm that what killed him was or was not cancer.
The family may well have made no statement on the cause of death. And
even if one or more of the professionals involved leak it, BBC may be particularly shy at the moment to present as fact what "sources close to ....."
"with bowel cancer." I've now heard it at least twice.
It's rather sloppy condensing, IMO: there is at least a trace of
implication that it was the diagnosis that was fatal, which of course it wasn't.
(Sorry, not technical, so OT really for this 'group. Unless it's the technicalities of language ..."
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
(please reply to group - they also serve who only look and lurk)
(William Allen, 1999 - after Milton, of course)
I thought that till one report on Sky news, said it was diagnosed in 2010,
so the implication then is that it was treated but eventually got him.
Brian
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 122:19:02 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,563 |