Word for the Day, Monday, July 2, 2012-- ineffable

7/2/12 | xs

[xsmommy]

Word For The Day, Monday, 7/2/12

;

---

In order that we might all raise the level of discourse and expand our language abilities, here is the daily post of "Word for the Day".

ineffable; adj.

1. incapable of being expressed or described in words; inexpressible: ineffable joy. 2. not to be spoken because of its sacredness; unutterable: the ineffable name of the deity. 1. too great or intense to be expressed in words; unutterable 2. too sacred to be uttered 3. indescribable; indefinable

Etymology: C15: from Latin ineffābilis unutterable, from in- 1 + effābilis, from effārī to utter, from fārī to speak]

ineffa'bility

Rules: Everyone must leave a post using the Word for the Day in a sentence.
The sentence must, in some way, relate to the news of the day.

The Review threads are linked for your edification. ;-)
Practice makes perfect.....post on....

---

[SoothingDave]

I never watched “ER.” I’m not much for cop or medical dramas.

[xsmommy]

A+++ for creepy Scientology homework.

here's the TEXTS FROM THE DOG. We RORed at them.

[xsmommy]

A+++ other than John Edwards I can’t imagine who watches it!!

[secret garden]

Omigosh, I’m making everyone come here and read them!

[tioga]

I spent a whole day working on patio and power washing outdoor furniture, pool, decking, house. Plants are in the pots around the house. Everything looks good enough to have a party. I’m just too tired to have one after all that work. Didn’t give healthcare a thought all day.

[hobbes1]

Forty-three Catholic dioceses and organizations across the country have announced lawsuits against the federal government to challenge the Obama administration’s mandate that religious organizations, such as Catholic charities and hospitals, must provide health plans that provide free access to abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg suggested in her concurrence/dissent with the health-law decision that the challenges may have a favorable hearing when they reach the high court: “A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.”

As I said...That's Ginsburg...