Nefertieh (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} nefertieh) wrote,@ 2006-09-23 23:00:00 |
|
Irony. Funny irony.
I noticed this a while ago. Has anyone else noticed? I'm talking about the word, "ravishing."
You can describe a photo as "ravishing." You can call a painting, "ravishing." Heck, you can even call a teacup "ravishing" if you will-- after all, ravishing simply means, "extremely attractive; entrancing."
So, let's that it is derived from the verb, ravish. Here's the funny bit here-- to ravish means, "to seize and carry away by force" or "to rape; violate."
Ofcourse, this doesn't make perfect sense here -- if ravish was the verb, then the present tense for that verb would be "ravishing." However, "ravishing" as an adjective, as described above. Yet, it still sounds like what you'd expect to be the present tense of "ravish..."
I suppose violation is extremely attractive, then.
I noticed this a while ago. Has anyone else noticed? I'm talking about the word, "ravishing."
You can describe a photo as "ravishing." You can call a painting, "ravishing." Heck, you can even call a teacup "ravishing" if you will-- after all, ravishing simply means, "extremely attractive; entrancing."
So, let's that it is derived from the verb, ravish. Here's the funny bit here-- to ravish means, "to seize and carry away by force" or "to rape; violate."
Ofcourse, this doesn't make perfect sense here -- if ravish was the verb, then the present tense for that verb would be "ravishing." However, "ravishing" as an adjective, as described above. Yet, it still sounds like what you'd expect to be the present tense of "ravish..."
I suppose violation is extremely attractive, then.
