Skip to main content
reworded cause I did not like how "Ill" looked (capital i + 2x lowercase l).
Source Link
J_LV
  • 872
  • 4
  • 11

To me, the choice of words makes a difference here.

I would use injury to refer to a laceration or a contusion, anything that happens rather suddenly.

IllThe word "ill" feels like a better fit when talking about a condition of pain and suffering that lasts. The speaker wanted to express that the man is having severe health problems as a consequence of the accident. "Injury" would be a good word to describe the trauma at the time of the accident. "ill" however feels like the proper word to describe the condition he is in after the accident.

The speaker could've said:

A man is seriously ill after having been injured by a police car.

He got hit by a car -> he was injured -> he lost a lot of blood -> now he's in the hospital, seriously ill.

Even though he's obviously still injured as well, the state he now is in is better described as being ill. His condition has simply gotten worse over time, either as a direct consequence of his injury or for reasons not (e.g. an infection) or only partially (blood loss following the injury) related to the actual accident. To convey that this development occurred and isn't necessarily directly related to his injury during the accident, the speaker chose to say that he's seriously ill.

Maybe that helps clarify it for you.

You stated that you wouldn't say "ill of an injury". I think what the speaker meant in this case was "ill due to the consequences of an injury".

To me, the choice of words makes a difference here.

I would use injury to refer to a laceration or a contusion, anything that happens rather suddenly.

Ill feels like a better fit when talking about a condition of pain and suffering that lasts. The speaker wanted to express that the man is having severe health problems as a consequence of the accident. "Injury" would be a good word to describe the trauma at the time of the accident. "ill" however feels like the proper word to describe the condition he is in after the accident.

The speaker could've said:

A man is seriously ill after having been injured by a police car.

He got hit by a car -> he was injured -> he lost a lot of blood -> now he's in the hospital, seriously ill.

Even though he's obviously still injured as well, the state he now is in is better described as being ill. His condition has simply gotten worse over time, either as a direct consequence of his injury or for reasons not (e.g. an infection) or only partially (blood loss following the injury) related to the actual accident. To convey that this development occurred and isn't necessarily directly related to his injury during the accident, the speaker chose to say that he's seriously ill.

Maybe that helps clarify it for you.

You stated that you wouldn't say "ill of an injury". I think what the speaker meant in this case was "ill due to the consequences of an injury".

To me, the choice of words makes a difference here.

I would use injury to refer to a laceration or a contusion, anything that happens rather suddenly.

The word "ill" feels like a better fit when talking about a condition of pain and suffering that lasts. The speaker wanted to express that the man is having severe health problems as a consequence of the accident. "Injury" would be a good word to describe the trauma at the time of the accident. "ill" however feels like the proper word to describe the condition he is in after the accident.

The speaker could've said:

A man is seriously ill after having been injured by a police car.

He got hit by a car -> he was injured -> he lost a lot of blood -> now he's in the hospital, seriously ill.

Even though he's obviously still injured as well, the state he now is in is better described as being ill. His condition has simply gotten worse over time, either as a direct consequence of his injury or for reasons not (e.g. an infection) or only partially (blood loss following the injury) related to the actual accident. To convey that this development occurred and isn't necessarily directly related to his injury during the accident, the speaker chose to say that he's seriously ill.

Maybe that helps clarify it for you.

You stated that you wouldn't say "ill of an injury". I think what the speaker meant in this case was "ill due to the consequences of an injury".

added 167 characters in body
Source Link
J_LV
  • 872
  • 4
  • 11

To me, the choice of words makes a difference here.

I would use injury to refer to a laceration or a contusion, anything that happens rather suddenly.

Ill feels like a better fit when talking about a condition of pain and suffering that lasts. The speaker wanted to express that the man is having severe health problems as a consequence of the accident. "Injury" would be a good word to describe the trauma at the time of the accident. "ill" however feels like the proper word to describe the condition he is in after the accident.

The speaker could've said:

A man is seriously ill after having been injured by a police car.

He got hit by a car -> he was injured -> he lost a lot of blood -> now he's in the hospital, seriously ill.

Even though he's obviously still injured as well, the state he now is in is better described as being ill. His condition has simply gotten worse over time, either as a direct causeconsequence of his injury or for reasons not (e.g. an infection) or only partially (blood loss as a cause offollowing the injury) related to the actual accident. To convey that this development occurred and isn't necessarily directly related to his injury during the accident, the speaker chose to say that he's now seriously ill.

Maybe that helps clarify it for you.

You stated that you wouldn't say "ill of an injury". I think what the speaker meant in this case was "ill due to the consequences of an injury".

To me, the choice of words makes a difference here.

I would use injury to refer to a laceration or a contusion, anything that happens rather suddenly.

Ill feels like a better fit when talking about a condition of pain and suffering that lasts. The speaker wanted to express that the man is having severe health problems as a consequence of the accident. "Injury" would be a good word to describe the trauma at the time of the accident. "ill" however feels like the proper word to describe the condition he is in after the accident.

The speaker could've said:

A man is seriously ill after having been injured by a police car.

He got hit by a car -> he was injured -> he lost a lot of blood -> now he's in the hospital, seriously ill.

Even though he's obviously still injured as well, the state he now is in is better described as being ill. His condition has simply gotten worse over time, either as a direct cause of his injury or for reasons not (e.g. an infection) or only partially (blood loss as a cause of the injury) related to the actual accident. To convey that this development occurred and isn't necessarily directly related to his injury during the accident, the speaker chose to say that he's now seriously ill.

Maybe that helps clarify it for you.

You stated that you wouldn't say "ill of an injury". I think what the speaker meant in this case was "ill due to the consequences of an injury".

To me, the choice of words makes a difference here.

I would use injury to refer to a laceration or a contusion, anything that happens rather suddenly.

Ill feels like a better fit when talking about a condition of pain and suffering that lasts. The speaker wanted to express that the man is having severe health problems as a consequence of the accident. "Injury" would be a good word to describe the trauma at the time of the accident. "ill" however feels like the proper word to describe the condition he is in after the accident.

The speaker could've said:

A man is seriously ill after having been injured by a police car.

He got hit by a car -> he was injured -> he lost a lot of blood -> now he's in the hospital, seriously ill.

Even though he's obviously still injured as well, the state he now is in is better described as being ill. His condition has simply gotten worse over time, either as a direct consequence of his injury or for reasons not (e.g. an infection) or only partially (blood loss following the injury) related to the actual accident. To convey that this development occurred and isn't necessarily directly related to his injury during the accident, the speaker chose to say that he's seriously ill.

Maybe that helps clarify it for you.

You stated that you wouldn't say "ill of an injury". I think what the speaker meant in this case was "ill due to the consequences of an injury".

added 167 characters in body
Source Link
J_LV
  • 872
  • 4
  • 11

To me, the choice of words makes a difference here.

I would use injury to refer to a laceration or a contusion, anything that happens rather suddenly.

Ill feels like a better fit when talking about a condition of pain and suffering that lasts. The speaker wanted to express that the man is having severe health problems as a consequence of the accident. "Injury" would be a good word to describe the trauma at the time of the accident. "ill" however feels like the proper word to describe the condition he is in after the accident.

The speaker could've said:

A man is seriously ill after having been injured by a police car.

He got hit by a car -> his leg he was injured -> he lost a lot of blood -> now he's in the hospital, seriously ill.

Even though he's obviously still injured as well, the conditionstate he now is in is better described as being "ill"ill. His condition may have simply (in your example: probably has) simply gotten worse over time, either as a direct cause of his injury or for reasons not (e.g. an infection) or only partially (blood loss as a cause of the injury) related to the actual accident. To convey that this development occurred and isn't necessarily directly related to his injury during the accident, the speaker chose to say that he's now seriously ill.

Maybe that helps clarify it for you.

You stated that you wouldn't say "ill of an injury". I think what the speaker meant in this case was "ill due to the consequences of an injury".

To me, the choice of words makes a difference here.

I would use injury to refer to a laceration or a contusion, anything that happens rather suddenly.

Ill feels like a better fit when talking about a condition of pain and suffering that lasts. The speaker wanted to express that the man is having severe health problems as a consequence of the accident. "Injury" would be a good word to describe the trauma at the time of the accident. "ill" however feels like the proper word to describe the condition he is in after the accident.

The speaker could've said:

A man is seriously ill after having been injured by a police car.

He got hit by a car -> his leg was injured -> he lost a lot of blood -> now he's in the hospital, seriously ill.

Even though he's obviously still injured as well, the condition he now is in is better described as being "ill". His condition may have simply (in your example: probably has) gotten worse over time or for reasons not (e.g. an infection) or only partially (blood loss as a cause of the injury) related to the actual accident.

Maybe that helps clarify it for you.

You stated that you wouldn't say "ill of an injury". I think what the speaker meant in this case was "ill due to the consequences of an injury".

To me, the choice of words makes a difference here.

I would use injury to refer to a laceration or a contusion, anything that happens rather suddenly.

Ill feels like a better fit when talking about a condition of pain and suffering that lasts. The speaker wanted to express that the man is having severe health problems as a consequence of the accident. "Injury" would be a good word to describe the trauma at the time of the accident. "ill" however feels like the proper word to describe the condition he is in after the accident.

The speaker could've said:

A man is seriously ill after having been injured by a police car.

He got hit by a car -> he was injured -> he lost a lot of blood -> now he's in the hospital, seriously ill.

Even though he's obviously still injured as well, the state he now is in is better described as being ill. His condition has simply gotten worse over time, either as a direct cause of his injury or for reasons not (e.g. an infection) or only partially (blood loss as a cause of the injury) related to the actual accident. To convey that this development occurred and isn't necessarily directly related to his injury during the accident, the speaker chose to say that he's now seriously ill.

Maybe that helps clarify it for you.

You stated that you wouldn't say "ill of an injury". I think what the speaker meant in this case was "ill due to the consequences of an injury".

added 311 characters in body
Source Link
J_LV
  • 872
  • 4
  • 11
Loading
deleted 57 characters in body
Source Link
J_LV
  • 872
  • 4
  • 11
Loading
deleted 57 characters in body
Source Link
J_LV
  • 872
  • 4
  • 11
Loading
deleted 57 characters in body
Source Link
J_LV
  • 872
  • 4
  • 11
Loading
Source Link
J_LV
  • 872
  • 4
  • 11
Loading