Especially when it refers to death.
The verb itself declares itself as active. One actively does this verb. Not passive.
So to use this verb, the subject actively does it.
And with that, a sense of responsibility comes. Culpability. Ownership of the act.
Which I reject when it comes to "losing" a child to death. I'm OK with ownership and culpability if you lose your child at Disneyland. Ultimately, you are responsible for where your child ends up - wandering tendencied child or not. And ultimately, the child is found. But why is this word used for death? Of the -too many now- parents I have known who have "lost" children, none of them actively "lost" them. The children were taken. By circumstance. By accident. By illness. But the parents didn't DO anything to lose their children.
How can you *lose* something that was *taken* from you? The act defies both definitions.
Yes, I'm being picky and focusing on one part of the definition of the word "lose". Yes, there are other nuances to the word. But words are powerful. And we use "lose" more often to explain something that we did - actively did. And there is power to that. Unwritten. Hidden. Negative power to using this word in response to death.
So I have a really hard time with this word. And I really wish I could come up with a better one. Perhaps I will have to turn to another language. English is woefully inadequate for me on this subject.
