"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)

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.

In message <2b5tbi9lh9oik23rfhkjf3urkisc4kd3eq@4ax.com> at Mon, 24 Jul
2023 16:15:13, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>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.)
--
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)

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.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

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
......"

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 24/07/2023 18:22, Robin wrote:
> 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
> ....."
>
Plus it really is no business of anyone outside the family.

Unusual to see such restraint in the press.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

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

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:NOzFb2t6OpvkFwCa@255soft.uk...
> "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)

In message <u9oa2d$13k9e$1@dont-email.me> at Tue, 25 Jul 2023 12:01:31,
Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> writes
>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
>
The reporting has settled down now, and it seems that he sadly died nine
years after diagnosis. It was the original reports using "died after
being diagnosed" that bugged me. But there are far worse uses of
language - and for that matter far worse things altogether (currently
seeing a report from Sudan, which is depressing).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Sometimes I believe we made up god just to have someone to blame for our
mistakes - "Sarah Sidle" (Jorja Fox), CSI