2 of 2
2
Cremains
Posted: 17 December 2007 03:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  311
Joined  2007-02-17
Dr. Techie - 17 December 2007 12:02 PM

Both of aldi’s cites were from publications intended for the general public. If an undertaker wants to use “cremains” in talking to a colleague in the business, or in a trade journal, that’s fine with me.  If he uses the term in my funeral notice, I will come back and go bump in the night in his bedroom, if I can.

By the way, do you have any awareness of how smugly superior your comments about the “general public” sound?  “Avalon”? “Pixies”? “ALL of Grandpa Joe”?

To the first paragraph, yes, that’s exactly the point I was trying to make.  My first response was to the post about why would anyone say anything other than ashes.

Do you see “general public” in the post about Avalon and pixies? I think you’re reading things I didn’t say.

If you were having a burial for an organ donor or an accident victim, would you like for people to keep saying “Here lies most of Mr. Smith”?  Likewise, at the columbarium, no one wants to hear the minister mention that the contents of the urn are just the ground-up bones of Mr. Jones.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 December 2007 05:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2781
Joined  2007-01-31

Do you see “general public” in the post about Avalon and pixies? I think you’re reading things I didn’t say.

Right, the “pixies” comment was just about someone who uses the term “ashes”.  No smug superiority there, no sir.

My first response was to the post about why would anyone say anything other than ashes.

I think you’re reading things I didn’t say. I was responding to Oecolampadius’s post about the phrase cropping up while his family was arranging his mother’s funeral, and his desire for some term other than “cremains”.  And I said “What’s wrong with ‘ashes’?”, not, “Why would anyone say anything except ‘ashes’?”.

[ Edited: 17 December 2007 05:30 PM by Dr. Techie ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 December 2007 05:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1253
Joined  2007-03-21

And, as I said in my earlier note, the word was used by the funeral director (a guy whose hair was WAAAYY too black) to describe the material that would be returned to the funeral home.  This was just two months ago. “If you would like us to dispose of the cremains, we will do so for a fee of $75.  If you have a specific place you would like them placed, the fee would be $150.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 December 2007 10:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1950
Joined  2007-02-19

From a chemical standpoint, ashes are the non-burnable, non-volatile substances that remain after something is burned.

True—and most chemists would refer to those as “ash” rather than “ashes”. Maybe the trouble lies in the use of the plural. “What would you like us to do with your grandfather’s ash?” leaves little room for technical quibble. If the funeral parlor director has ill-fitting dentures, and the word comes out “ass”, he might try “cinera”. That should suit the most mealy-mouthed of undertakers.

;-)

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2
 
‹‹ get my goat      overpowered ››