"wounded" or "injured"?
MC
the Italian earthquake. I would have said "the injured."
I've never really thought about it, but I suppose I assume "wounded"
implies an intentionally inflicted injury.
Yes? No?
--
I really don't care what movie stars have to say about life.
ã Morley Safer
Cheryl
> I heard a radio reporter talking about "the wounded" in the context of
> the Italian earthquake. I would have said "the injured."
>
> I've never really thought about it, but I suppose I assume "wounded"
> implies an intentionally inflicted injury.
>
> Yes? No?
>
I agree with you. I'd never speak of someone being wounded by the
effects of an earthquake. People are wounded in battle by other people,
or their feelings are wounded, again by other people.
Cheryl
James Hogg
wrote:
>I heard a radio reporter talking about "the wounded" in the context of
>the Italian earthquake. I would have said "the injured."
>
>I've never really thought about it, but I suppose I assume "wounded"
>implies an intentionally inflicted injury.
>
>Yes? No?
The COD defines wound as "an injury [sic] to living tissue caused
by a cut, blow, or other impact". So wounds could certainly be
caused by an earthquake or an accident, but the medical term
"wound" does not cover fractures. The broader term "injury" would
be better in this context.
The Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary has an entry for wound but
none for injury.
--
James
MC
wrote:
And sometimes it's inflicted unintentionally.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 07:59:38 -0400, MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I heard a radio reporter talking about "the wounded" in the context of
>>the Italian earthquake. I would have said "the injured."
>>
>>I've never really thought about it, but I suppose I assume "wounded"
>>implies an intentionally inflicted injury.
>>
>>Yes? No?
>
>The COD defines wound as "an injury [sic] to living tissue caused
>by a cut, blow, or other impact". So wounds could certainly be
>caused by an earthquake or an accident, but the medical term
>"wound" does not cover fractures. The broader term "injury" would
>be better in this context.
>
I agree.
This gives definitions for "wound" from various dictionaries:
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/wound
This one from _The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright ©
2007, 2004_ is how I normally understand "wound":
1. Injury to a part or tissue of the body, especially one caused by
physical trauma and characterized by tearing, cutting, piercing, or
breaking of the tissue.
2. An incision.
>The Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary has an entry for wound but
>none for injury.
Does it have one for "trauma", possibly defined using the word "injury"?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
James Hogg
Indeed. It's defined as "a physical wound or injury, such as a
fracture or blow".
Then there's the psychological sense.
--
James
Mike Mooney
> I heard a radio reporter talking about "the wounded" in the context of
> the Italian earthquake. I would have said "the injured."
>
> I've never really thought about it, but I suppose I assume "wounded"
> implies an intentionally inflicted injury.
>
> Yes? No?
>
Gosh, is it really five years?
Mike M
Steve Hayes
>I heard a radio reporter talking about "the wounded" in the context of
>the Italian earthquake. I would have said "the injured."
>
>I've never really thought about it, but I suppose I assume "wounded"
>implies an intentionally inflicted injury.
That's what it implies to me.
One is wounded in war, but injured in accidents.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
TonyCooper
That is the definition of a wound. The question is about the word
that describes a person who acquires a wound as a result of an
physical act caused by an accident or a natural disaster. That word
is "injured".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Skitt
> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" wrote:
>> James Hogg wrote:
>>> MC wrote:
>>>> I heard a radio reporter talking about "the wounded" in the
>>>> context of the Italian earthquake. I would have said "the injured."
>>>>
>>>> I've never really thought about it, but I suppose I assume
>>>> "wounded" implies an intentionally inflicted injury.
>>>>
>>>> Yes? No?
>>>
>>> The COD defines wound as "an injury [sic] to living tissue caused
>>> by a cut, blow, or other impact". So wounds could certainly be
>>> caused by an earthquake or an accident, but the medical term
>>> "wound" does not cover fractures. The broader term "injury" would
>>> be better in this context.
>>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> This gives definitions for "wound" from various dictionaries:
>> http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/wound
>>
>> This one from _The American Heritage� Medical Dictionary Copyright �
>> 2007, 2004_ is how I normally understand "wound":
>>
>> 1. Injury to a part or tissue of the body, especially one caused
>> by physical trauma and characterized by tearing, cutting,
>> piercing, or breaking of the tissue.
>> 2. An incision.
>
> That is the definition of a wound. The question is about the word
> that describes a person who acquires a wound as a result of an
> physical act caused by an accident or a natural disaster. That word
> is "injured".
"Hurt", even.
<exit, stage left>
--
Skitt (AmE)
James Hogg
Good point.
--
James
Irwell
> On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:30:06 +0200, James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 07:59:38 -0400, MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I heard a radio reporter talking about "the wounded" in the context of
>>>the Italian earthquake. I would have said "the injured."
>>>
>>>I've never really thought about it, but I suppose I assume "wounded"
>>>implies an intentionally inflicted injury.
>>>
>>>Yes? No?
>>
>>The COD defines wound as "an injury [sic] to living tissue caused
>>by a cut, blow, or other impact". So wounds could certainly be
>>caused by an earthquake or an accident, but the medical term
>>"wound" does not cover fractures. The broader term "injury" would
>>be better in this context.
>>
> I agree.
>
> This gives definitions for "wound" from various dictionaries:
> http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/wound
>
> This one from _The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright ©
> 2007, 2004_ is how I normally understand "wound":
>
> 1. Injury to a part or tissue of the body, especially one caused by
> physical trauma and characterized by tearing, cutting, piercing, or
> breaking of the tissue.
> 2. An incision.
>
My dermatologist said "I will now close the wound", after
removing a pre-cancerous lesion.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 07:59:38 -0400, MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
>
>>I heard a radio reporter talking about "the wounded" in the context of
>>the Italian earthquake. I would have said "the injured."
>>
>>I've never really thought about it, but I suppose I assume "wounded"
>>implies an intentionally inflicted injury.
>
>That's what it implies to me.
>
>One is wounded in war, but injured in accidents.
It is possible that the military use of "wounded" has historical
origins. The earliest weapons, spears and then swords, did create wounds
by puncturing or cutting.
DavidW
> I heard a radio reporter talking about "the wounded" in the context of
> the Italian earthquake. I would have said "the injured."
>
> I've never really thought about it, but I suppose I assume "wounded"
> implies an intentionally inflicted injury.
>
> Yes? No?
To me the noun 'wound' seems more reasonable as a synonym for injury than the
verb 'wound' as a synonym for 'injure' where the injury is, say, a deep cut
resulting from an earthquake. E.g., "I'll put a bandage on that wound" looks
okay for such an injury, but I wouldn't use the verb for it.
Glenn Knickerbocker
> That is the definition of a wound. The question is about the word
> that describes a person who acquires a wound
Are you suggesting that the verb "wound" is an ugly neologism?
M-W dates it to "before 12th century."
ŹR
Steve Hayes
I'm sure it does.
And they can be inflicted in circumstances other than war by using a weapon of
some kind -- there are knife wounds and gunshot wounds, for example. But
earthquakes don't wield knives or guns.
One could also quibble about some weapons -- a club or a mace, for example,
might not inflict a wound, strictly speaking.
One can quibble about the details, but generally when one reads about people
being wounded, the mental picture is of a war or fight, in which people attack
one another. When people are injured in an accident or natural disaster, one
normally speaks of their injuries rather than their wounds, and one speaks of
such people as injured rather than wounded.
TonyCooper
No, Glenn, I'm suggesting that Peter refer to the post where this
usage of "wound" was used and note that it is about the noun.
I'm sure Peter followed the word "that" to the proper place.
Glenn Knickerbocker
>No, Glenn, I'm suggesting that Peter refer to the post where this
>usage of "wound" was used and note that it is about the noun.
What?
"The question . . . about the word that describes a person who acquires a
wound" asked about the words "wounded" and "injured." Neither of those
is the noun "wound."
Your response, "That word is 'injured,'" implied to me that you didn't
acknowledge "wounded" as a word with that meaning. I must have missed
some other implication you meant to make about the verb "wound" by
dismissing it without mention.
WHOOPS! GUESS SOMEONE'S GONNA HAVE TO CLEAN THAT UP! MAYBE NEXT TIME
ŹR >--> THE GUY SHOULD TRY A LITTLE HARDER NOT TO HIT PEOPLE WITH
http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/davidcar.html >--> HIS CAR! --Jake
Arcadian Rises
[...]
> I'd never speak of someone being wounded by the
> effects of an earthquake. People are wounded in battle by other people, or their feelings are wounded, again by other people.
But their reputation is injured, not wounded
James Hogg
<Arcadi...@aol.com> wrote:
Worse, their reputation is shot, as the Bryants put it.
--
James
TonyCooper
<No...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 02:40:35 -0400, TonyCooper wrote:
>>No, Glenn, I'm suggesting that Peter refer to the post where this
>>usage of "wound" was used and note that it is about the noun.
>
>What?
>
>"The question . . . about the word that describes a person who acquires a
>wound" asked about the words "wounded" and "injured." Neither of those
>is the noun "wound."
>
>Your response, "That word is 'injured,'" implied to me that you didn't
>acknowledge "wounded" as a word with that meaning. I must have missed
>some other implication you meant to make about the verb "wound" by
>dismissing it without mention.
If you don't understand, Glenn, just go back and look at the posting.
Peter offered:
>This one from _The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright ©
>2007, 2004_ is how I normally understand "wound":
>
> 1. Injury to a part or tissue of the body, especially one caused by
> physical trauma and characterized by tearing, cutting, piercing, or
> breaking of the tissue.
> 2. An incision.
To which I replied:
>That is the definition of a wound. The question is about the word
>that describes a person who acquires a wound as a result of an
>physical act caused by an accident or a natural disaster. That word
>is "injured".
No implication was intended or harmed in the making of my post.
I don't acknowledge "wounded" as a word that describes a person who
acquires a wound by accident or natural disaster because I don't think
it *does* describe that. The word "wounded" has meaning, but it
doesn't apply to this.
I dismissed the meaning and use of "wounded" without mention because
it didn't apply to the context. I didn't mention the price of eggs,
the state of the economy, or the gestation period of the platypus for
the same reason.
If you feel that a person who acquires a wound as a result of an
accident or natural disaster can properly be described as "wounded",
then have at it. Go for it. Use it freely. Just don't expect me to
agree.
>WHOOPS! GUESS SOMEONE'S GONNA HAVE TO CLEAN THAT UP! MAYBE NEXT TIME
>¬R >--> THE GUY SHOULD TRY A LITTLE HARDER NOT TO HIT PEOPLE WITH
>http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/davidcar.html >--> HIS CAR! --Jake
Why is this part of your post? Do you feel the car or the tree has
been wounded?
Glenn Knickerbocker
> I don't acknowledge "wounded" as a word that describes a person who
> acquires a wound by accident or natural disaster because I don't think
> it *does* describe that. The word "wounded" has meaning, but it
> doesn't apply to this.
What's not clear to me from any of this is what meaning you *do* think
it has. M-W's definition of the transitive verb "wound," which agrees
with my understanding, is simply "to cause a wound to or in." In that
sense, I don't see how someone with a wound caused by accident or
natural disaster is not wounded.
> I dismissed the meaning and use of "wounded" without mention because
> it didn't apply to the context.
This baffles me in the context of a question about the meaning and use
of "wounded."
ŹR
Evan Kirshenbaum
> That is the definition of a wound. The question is about the word
> that describes a person who acquires a wound as a result of an
> physical act caused by an accident or a natural disaster. That word
> is "injured".
I can't seem to pin down my intuitions here. I seem to be okay with
"wounded" for explosions, even if accidental.
Looking at Google Books, I can find peole injured in earthquakes being
described as "the wounded" for quite a while. FOr example
About two years ago it suffered from an earthquake, which
occasioned the loss of about 125 lives... The King of Italy at
once went to Ischia, urging on the operations, which were under
the personal direction of Signor Genela, the minister of public
works; and by prompt and energetic action the wounded were
properly cared for.
Lewis Richmond, letter, 8/3/1883, _Papers
Relating to the Foreign Relations of the
United States_, 1884.
No one was permitted to leave Lisbon without a written order,
which wise regulation prevented those from eloping with the
ill-gotten booty which they had sacreligiously seized in the
churches, or feloniously stolen from private houses immediately
after the first consternation of the earthquake had abated. The
wounded were removed to places prepared for their reception.
_The Monthly Review_, May, 1844
The earliest I see
At Fez and Mequinez, on the 18th of November [1755] there happened
another earthquake, which was more violent than the first, and
lasted till break of day the 19th; during which time great numbers
of houses fell down at Fez; many people of both sexes were buried
under their ruins; and as to Mequinez, there are but few houses
left standing. The people killed by the falling of the houses,
besides the wounded, are numberless; and in the part of the town
called the Jews' Habitation, only eight persons were saved.
Edward Polehampton, _The Gallery of Nature
and Art_, 1815
But the earthquake which this gentleman described, was not to be
compared with that which destroyed Caraccas, in 1812 ... The
wounded were layed on the banks of the river Guayara, but they
found no shelter, except under the trees.
_Travels in South America_, 1822
The 1812 Caracas quake is estimated at 7.0 on the Richter scale. The
1755 Lisbon quake was 8.6. I can't seem to find an estimate for the
Meknes quake, which happened a few weeks later.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There are two types of people -
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |those who are one of the two types
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |of people, and those who are not.
| Leigh Blue Caldwell
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Mike Lyle
> TonyCooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> That is the definition of a wound. The question is about the word
>> that describes a person who acquires a wound as a result of an
>> physical act caused by an accident or a natural disaster. That word
>> is "injured".
>
> I can't seem to pin down my intuitions here. I seem to be okay with
> "wounded" for explosions, even if accidental.
>
> Looking at Google Books, I can find peole injured in earthquakes being
I think it was W.W.Sawyer, in /Mathematician's Delight/, who referred to
"the wounded" after a train crash; that book appeared, IIRC, in the
1940s. It's possible, of course, that I'm misremembering another book of
the period, but the example itself stuck in my mind as being an unusual
use of the word.
--
Mike.
TonyCooper
<No...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>TonyCooper wrote:
>> I don't acknowledge "wounded" as a word that describes a person who
>> acquires a wound by accident or natural disaster because I don't think
>> it *does* describe that. The word "wounded" has meaning, but it
>> doesn't apply to this.
>
>What's not clear to me from any of this is what meaning you *do* think
>it has.
Geez, Glenn, it's a standard, ordinary, everyday, word. I understand
it the same way you do. We may differ on who we would describe as
"wounded", but my understanding of the meaning is the same.
Based on past exchanges with you, any attempt I would make to clarify
my understanding would lead to further purported bafflement and
disagreement on your part. If I'm going to argue with someone, I'm
going to argue with someone who presents interesting points of
difference. And, someone who states their own point and not someone
who merely disagrees with mine.
> M-W's definition of the transitive verb "wound," which agrees
>with my understanding, is simply "to cause a wound to or in." In that
>sense, I don't see how someone with a wound caused by accident or
>natural disaster is not wounded.
>
>> I dismissed the meaning and use of "wounded" without mention because
>> it didn't apply to the context.
>
>This baffles me in the context of a question about the meaning and use
>of "wounded."
Well, tough. If you can't understand that each message in a thread
can have individual context, then I can't explain it to you. Nor am I
interested in attempting to do so.
John Varela
wrote:
> I heard a radio reporter talking about "the wounded" in the context of
> the Italian earthquake. I would have said "the injured."
>
> I've never really thought about it, but I suppose I assume "wounded"
> implies an intentionally inflicted injury.
>
> Yes? No?
If you're going to ask the same question is both aue and aeu, please
crosspost instead of creating independent threads.
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
I have that book at/to hand. I now have my hand on it.
Page 34 in the Pelican Edition, 1943 (reprinted 1959).
He is discussing railway timetabling and the situation of a single
railway track with two trains approaching one another.
_For the purpose of this question_ the trains and railway-line might
just as well be two beads and a wire. Of course for other purposes -
if you had to provide ambulances for the wounded, or if you wanted
to paint a picture of the event - it would be necessary to know
further details.
Roland Hutchinson
I thought I was the only person on the planet -- or at least in North
America -- who had that book. I won a copy in an elementary-school math
competition. With its assortment of topics, and old-fashioned British
notation to boot, it provided a certain amount of puzzlement for my young
and still largely unformed brain.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Ian Jackson
<Jas....@gOUTmail.com> writes
--
Ian
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
I didn't get my copy until I was 22. At the time I was fully occupied as
a member of the team working on the Manchester Atlas Computer[1] that
was under development. I recall skimming through the book and deciding
to read it properly once I had the time to devote to it. Along with
other worthwhile books it has been gathering dust ever since.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_computer
Irwell
>
> I didn't get my copy until I was 22. At the time I was fully occupied as
> a member of the team working on the Manchester Atlas Computer[1] that
> was under development. I recall skimming through the book and deciding
> to read it properly once I had the time to devote to it. Along with
> other worthwhile books it has been gathering dust ever since.
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_computer
"It was a second-generation computer, using germanium transistors"
From the above Wikipedia reference. That quote takes me back
I made a regen shortwave receiver that used just one germanium
transistor about that time, 1960s. Expensive little buggers
at that time.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Silicon transistors were even more expensive. There were a few silicon
transistors in the Atlas. There were only just becoming available in the
late-1950s/early-1960s.
Mike Lyle
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 21:24:43 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
> <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> I think it was W.W.Sawyer, in /Mathematician's Delight/, who
>> referred to "the wounded" after a train crash; that book appeared,
>> IIRC, in the 1940s. It's possible, of course, that I'm
>> misremembering another book of the period, but the example itself
>> stuck in my mind as being an unusual use of the word.
>
> I have that book at/to hand. I now have my hand on it.
So it was underhand?
>
> Page 34 in the Pelican Edition, 1943 (reprinted 1959).
> He is discussing railway timetabling and the situation of a single
> railway track with two trains approaching one another.
>
> _For the purpose of this question_ the trains and railway-line
> might just as well be two beads and a wire. Of course for other
> purposes - if you had to provide ambulances for the wounded, or if
> you wanted to paint a picture of the event - it would be necessary
> to know further details.
Vindicated, egad! Thank you.
--
Mike.
Roland Hutchinson
At any rate, the book's been on your bookshelf a while longer than on mine.
Chuck Riggs
What? I was buying CK722 germanium transistors for around ten cents a
piece in those days.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
I assume that my coworkers and I were not alone in occasionally calling
them geranium transistors.
Amethyst Deceiver
>On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:09:58 +0100, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I didn't get my copy until I was 22. At the time I was fully occupied as
>> a member of the team working on the Manchester Atlas Computer[1] that
>> was under development. I recall skimming through the book and deciding
>> to read it properly once I had the time to devote to it. Along with
>> other worthwhile books it has been gathering dust ever since.
>>
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_computer
>
>"It was a second-generation computer, using germanium transistors"
I read that as geranium. Far nicer, I feel.
--
Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary
Roland Hutchinson
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 08:50:30 -0700, Irwell <ho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:09:58 +0100, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I didn't get my copy until I was 22. At the time I was fully occupied as
>>> a member of the team working on the Manchester Atlas Computer[1] that
>>> was under development. I recall skimming through the book and deciding
>>> to read it properly once I had the time to devote to it. Along with
>>> other worthwhile books it has been gathering dust ever since.
>>>
>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_computer
>>
>>"It was a second-generation computer, using germanium transistors"
>
> I read that as geranium. Far nicer, I feel.
Let me guess: you have a soft spot for bakers, and other varieties of floury
pros.
Steve Hayes
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>I assume that my coworkers and I were not alone in occasionally calling
>them geranium transistors.
Used in those celery telephones, no doubt.
Irwell
> Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 08:50:30 -0700, Irwell <ho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:09:58 +0100, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didn't get my copy until I was 22. At the time I was fully occupied as
>>>> a member of the team working on the Manchester Atlas Computer[1] that
>>>> was under development. I recall skimming through the book and deciding
>>>> to read it properly once I had the time to devote to it. Along with
>>>> other worthwhile books it has been gathering dust ever since.
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_computer
>>>
>>>"It was a second-generation computer, using germanium transistors"
>>
>> I read that as geranium. Far nicer, I feel.
>
> Let me guess: you have a soft spot for bakers, and other varieties of floury
> pros.
But hard for the self raising flour user.
Amethyst Deceiver
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 08:50:30 -0700, Irwell <ho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:09:58 +0100, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didn't get my copy until I was 22. At the time I was fully occupied as
>>>> a member of the team working on the Manchester Atlas Computer[1] that
>>>> was under development. I recall skimming through the book and deciding
>>>> to read it properly once I had the time to devote to it. Along with
>>>> other worthwhile books it has been gathering dust ever since.
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_computer
>>>
>>>"It was a second-generation computer, using germanium transistors"
>>
>> I read that as geranium. Far nicer, I feel.
>
>Let me guess: you have a soft spot for bakers, and other varieties of floury
>pros.
Only if they bake gluten-free.
James Hogg
Yes, they sang it (under the name The Everly Brothers), but
Felice and Boudleaux Bryant deserve the credit (or blame?) for
writing it.
--
James
Ian Jackson
>On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 08:48:16 +0100, Ian Jackson
><ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <2dcpt4p1ea8kpb7u0...@4ax.com>, James Hogg
>><Jas....@gOUTmail.com> writes
>>>On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 07:03:43 -0700 (PDT), Arcadian Rises
>>><Arcadi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Apr 7, 8:14?am, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>> I'd never speak of someone being wounded by the
>>>>> effects of an earthquake. People are wounded in battle by other
>>>>>people, or their feelings are wounded, again by other people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But their reputation is injured, not wounded
>>>
>>>Worse, their reputation is shot, as the Bryants put it.
>>>
>>And the Everley Brothers (in 'Wake Up, Little Susie').
>
>Yes, they sang it (under the name The Everly Brothers), but
>Felice and Boudleaux Bryant deserve the credit (or blame?) for
>writing it.
>
Interesting...
--
Ian