Blue Christmas Cannibalism
Posted by Neal on December 19, 2013
Looking through the community newspaper, I saw an announcement of the various Christmas-related services that a local church was having. One of them caught my eye:
I liked the creative use of the song title “Blue Christmas” to name a service for, I assumed, people grieving for departed loved ones or maybe with serious health problems. Pretty clever name, I thought, for a service that I hadn’t heard of before but which sounded like it filled a need. Then I looked across to the facing page of the newspaper, saw another listing of Christmas services from another church, and among the services, saw listed another Blue Christmas service. So apparently this wasn’t an original naming, but a more widespread thing. On the American Dialect Society email list, Dan Goncharoff found two attestations from 1998, both from Canada, and both describing it as a service “for those grieving and in pain at Christmas.” If you’ve heard of Blue Christmas services earlier than that, let me know in the comments.
However, that’s not what I really wanted to comment on. I was more interested in the description in the newspaper:
for those whom Christmas is a difficult time to celebrate in the traditional fashion
Christmas is a difficult time for them to celebrate in the traditional fashion
Turning that into a relative clause, we would expect
those for whom Christmas is a difficult time to celebrate in the traditional fashion
Putting it all together, we should have
for those for whom Christmas is a difficult time to celebrate in the traditional fashion
But the writer, I suspect, second-guessed themself and figured there must be something wrong with the lineup of for those for. In the earlier post that I linked to, I noted that the two prepositions had to be the same, but actually, that might not be true. In the widely mangled proverb
Of those to whom much is given, much is expected.
the of at the beginning is often lopped off. Why the of instead of the to? I don’t know, but I notice that in these two examples, the preposition that survives is the one that points to the beneficiary role: the person who is given much, the person the service is intended for.
On an unrelated note, for a few hours after I read the announcement, I had “Blue Christmas” running through my head, and not just any version, but the version from Elvis’s Christmas Album, including the wah-wah-wah-waah ostinato that was drilled into my head through Dad’s numerous playings of the album over the years. What’s the linguistic connection? Also on that album is “Santa Bring My Baby Back,” which I first heard at age 4, when Dad had just bought the album and was playing it for us. “Listen, Neal-o, he wants Santa to bring his baby back,” he told me. At that age, I knew nothing of the lexical ambiguity of baby; I just wondered why jolly old Santa had taken away this man’s child.
This entry was posted on December 19, 2013 at 9:17 pm and is filed under Christmas songs, Christmas-related, Relative clauses. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.