Monday, 20 July 2009


There was a pool within which was water...but what sense is it to say there was a pool within which was water? A pool is water, or at least some form of liquid. It should be: "There was a pool of water." You can't pretend to have the pool, and then, as if distinct from this pool, the water that makes it a pool. "There was a pool of water within which was water." Superfluous, tautological even- and not even even. You can have water without a pool, but not a pool without water, if that is of course it is a pool of water and not, say, a pool of blood, but I think, in general, it's reasonable to assume when mentioning pools that it's pools of water one is talking about, and not these other rarer and more than likely ephemeral pools, such as are of blood, and, needless to say, in those cases it would be necessary to clarify that that is specifically the kind of pool one is speaking of, that is of blood or whatever specific fluid, and not the usual one of water.
There was life and within this life an observer of this life...

No comments: