Well the problem could remain even though the roots are gone.

That still makes it a mixed--or at least confused--metaphor, no? If something has roots, it dies when its roots die.

There's also something awkward about applying "ephemeral" to a object. I usually think of it as applied to the duration of events or states.

I think the word they were looking for was "diffuse", but since it only had 2 syllables, it wasn't impressive enough for the Grey Lady...

comic metaphor -

- not sure "diffuse" works either

adj. (d-fys)
Widely spread or scattered; not concentrated.

Even if you treat "roots" as a metaphor (conjuring the image of a tree) , and not just as a synonym for "causes", I think it still works...

Jim - Where is the article in the NYT? I could not find it. Likely diffuse will work, if context suggest so.

does that imply that adressing the roots indirectly would work? if they are ephemeral, they would still be gone? how would indirectly adressing them do any better??

love the media.

where's nyt article: google news, 3rd url actually

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/11/business/11ECON.html

I would say that they are looking for either "entrenched" or "evasive" (thinking of other words that begin with 'e').

Maybe "elusive" or "equivocal" was meant?

Though "ill-defined" "indefinite" or "indeterminate" would work better.

This may be related to the issue of mistaking something short term for something temporary. There may sometimes be some underlying process that keeps generating more short term shocks indefinitely, thus creating a sustained rather than a temporary phenomenon despite its immediate and proximate causes being short term.

But if that is happening here, the analysis is wrong; what are being mistaken for the "roots" of the problem are merely its proximate causes, whereas the true roots are bound up with deeper phenomena.

Actually, looking again at the quote in its context, the deep issue is, what the hell is the sentence really trying to say anyway? Just about any interpretation I give it seems not to imbue it with a whole lot of sense in the presence of the immediately surrounding sentences.

What does "ephemeral" have to do with "deep feelings of uncertainty"? What are the things that are supposed to be here today and gone tommorrow?

The best I can come up with is a word with a completely different meaning, such as "ill-defined" for "ephemeral".

And, now that we're more or less on the topic, what does it mean when Bill Martin says that "what CEOs would complain of lack of visibility", referring to the nature of the cycle? "Lack of visibility"? Is that some kind of corporate-speak for a murkiness regarding what is going on in the cycle?

"Ephemeral" looks a bit like "ethereal" and is thus picked up upon by ignorant people looking for a posh-sounding word for "insubstantial" or "hazy".

Compare the sad fate of "jejune", a word which you will never convince anyone these days is not French, or for that matter is not spelt "jejeune".

Don't even get me started on "ilk".