Diana moves the UK forward

Editor,
This past week, I shared some very special and noteworthy events with the World. On Sunday Morning, 31 August, I turned on CNN news and learned that Princess Diana had been involved in a serious accident. The car she was in was attempting to elude photographers who do not know the difference between ‘public’ and ‘private’ lives of the world leaders and celebrities. Not long afterwards, I learned that she had died in a Paris hospital. Thus began one of the most remarkable weeks I have seen.
That afternoon, Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of UK, made the statement that the Princess, who had done so much for the people of the world, should be given a funeral fit for a person in such high esteem to the world. Early in the week, it was announced by the Royal Household that she would be given a fitting funeral and plans were started. During the week, people and the press of the UK chided the Royal Household for not showing public display of their grief.
Again, tradition was broken with, and the ‘Royals’ entered into the modern world. Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles and his sons publicly viewed the massive floral tributes to the now dead Princess. (I happen to believe that they should have privacy in their grief also.) Such public criticism of Royalty would not happen in Thailand, but then, our Royal Family has been much more openly caring toward the people of Thailand. In response to the demands of our modern world, Queen Elizabeth made a live television appearance expressing her grief over the death of Princess Diana. (Such public displays of emotion have not been the way for Royalty in Great Britain.) Many traditions of Windsor House were forever changed during the past week.
I, like millions of others throughout the world, was glued to my TV during the funeral processions and Funeral Service. The reading of scripture by Tony Blair (not really reading, but expressing the true feeling of the scripture) reminded us that without ‘LOVE’ we are nothing. The singing of modern music by Elton John, along with traditional music, took us into our new world. The comments of Diana’s brother (Earl Spencer) during the service were, mostly warranted. He served notice on the press that they had better learn the difference between ‘public’ lives of people and that which is ‘private’. (Most importantly the young princes.) The reciting of ‘The Lord’s Prayer’ during this service shared by the world probably joined more people than ever before in a united praying to the ‘God’ of our world. The United Kingdom has entered into a new era and we have been a part of it. Unfortunately, these advances of the past week would not have taken place without the death of Diana. May she rest in peace and know that the showing of love which she started, will continue.
Bob Purdy

In Loving Memory of my Queen of Hearts

A world grieves at the loss of its loving princess. But, why are our hearts so heavy?
I grieve because she was the embodiment of empathy, of goodness.
I grieve because I lost someone of great personal value to me.
I grieve because I wanted her to be happy.
I grieve because I wanted her to win.
I grieve because she made the world a better place.
I grieve because she gave the world hope.
I grieve because she made me feel.
I grieve because her sons lost the best mother one could have.
In a world filled to the rim with superficial fluff how could we bare to lose someone so real? So tender? She had to die before we fully realized how much we loved and appreciated our little girl. In a world lost in its busyness we took her presence for granted.
She really was our princess. A ray of sunshine in a dark world. As my friends speak of their genuine concern for the future lives of her sons — it dawns on me — we are talking about her and her children as if they belong to us — as if they were our children. Children of the world community.
How can we feel such genuine concern over a stranger? She helped us feel our own humanity and with her loss, we’ve lost part of our own. If there was any good to her death it was only to bring the entire world community together as one, to grieve — to know we all loved the same sweet person.
Diana was my princess. We were part of one large family. Life’s not a fairytale, but Diana let us live one, at least through her eyes. And when the fairytale was over, she showed us that goodness still exists by the millions around the world who cried.
Her death’s impact on the world showed us all that mankind still values the virtues of someone like our Diana.
Long live the memory of our Queen of Hearts.
John Deegan

Riled over healthful vs. healthy

Dear Editor,
It was good to read the reply to my letter on English by A. Stewart (PM, 5.9.97, p.7). It is nice to know that there are other pedants in Pattaya besides me. Sorry, A. Stewart, but my position on the difference between “healthy” and “healthful” stands. The four dictionaries I have list the primary and secondary meanings of “healthy” as possessing good health, being of sound health. Under a third or forth definition, the dictionaries point out that “healthy” is also used synonymously with “healthful.”
The controversy about the distinction has been going on since the 1880’s according to the American Heritage Dictionary. You are thus incorrect in labeling the distinction idiosyncratic. If native speakers are aware of the difference, but, based on citation, choose to treat the two words as having overlapping meanings, that is certainly justifiable. However, it is a weak argument with little or no merit for you to assume there is no difference because “healthful” is not part of your active vocabulary.
A better argument would be to point out that according to the Oxford English Dictionary both words have been cited since about 1550, and that in modern English “healthful” is limited to the meaning of promoting good health, whereas “healthy” is most commonly used with the meaning to possess good health, but that it is also used synonymously with “healthful.” Furthermore you might state that language is constantly changing and that “healthful,” although correct in the dictionaries, will go the way of “healthsome.” It will become obsolete in favor of “healthy” because it is the preferred choice of the hoi polloi. But what a pity if all the pedants in the world were to fall victim to the lowest common denominator of popular usage. I am sure A. Stewart would not want to be pressurized into accepting “healthful.” I am sure he/she would prefer to be pressured.
And please, A. Stewart, before you ask me to scrutinise [sic] my own writing, make sure you spell scrutinize correctly.
Sincerely,
St. James

Lighting the promenade

Editor;
This is to those responsible for the new lamps on the promenade.
Congratulations for the new lamp posts on the promenade. Now people can walk and see where they are walking in addition to feeling safe. The lamps which we had before, and which I immediately named the “moon lamps”, were completely unsuitable for the purpose. By the way, is it not time to remove those lamps as it now must be about 3 months since the new lamps were erected?
The [new] lamps are quite decorative and would probably serve their purpose for many years if it was not for the fact that the city has bought the poorest quality material. I’m willing to bet 1000 baht - with those responsible - that within a year the lamp posts will be a sad sight. Already now the paint has started to grind off with the help of the sand and the wind. The bases of the lamps have started to rust and the concrete bases have gotten no decorative rust stripes.
Maintenance has never been the city’s strong side. So all of us who were so happy over the new lamp posts - take a look at the result of tightening the belt too tight.
Sincerely,
Allan

Diana moves the UK forward

In Loving Memory of my Queen of Hearts

Riled over healthful vs. healthy

Lighting the promenade