Afghanistan Repatriation Memorial

[Jonathan Lighter]

"To repatriate remains" doesn't grate much on me, but a plain
"repatriation" memorial does. And if any *people* are "repatriated," they
should still be living.

Obviously a lost cause, however, the minute the new usage appeared.

JL

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:10 AM, W Brewer <brewerwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       W Brewer <brewerwa at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: Afghanistan Repatriation Memorial
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> S<puellaest>: <<<Afghanistan Repatriation Memorial  honouring Canadian
> soldiers that died in Afghanistan.  this use of "repatriation" is somewhat
> odd.>>>
> WB<puellanonest>: The collocation <Afghanistan Repatriation Memorial>
> collides interpretation-wise with something like <Armenian Holocaust
> Memorial>: i.e. A.R.M. sounds like "A memorial to the survivors (who have
> since died) of a forced repatriation back to Afghanistan and a certain
> death".  So I also think this a new twist to the A.H.M. syntagm.
>  DG: <<<I am trying to figure out what is so odd about using the word
> "repatriation"
> to refer to bringing back the bodies of soldiers who died on foreign soil.
> What word would you use?
> WB: For me, only the living can be repatriated. (Now that I checked, I see
> remains of war dead are being _repatriated_ on the internet, although
> _brought home_ is common and what I would say.)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>



--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org