TIL that some languages apparently have words inherently differentiating one's status as a citizen or resident of the entity versus a member of a particular ethnic or cultural group? I don't quite grasp the whole thing, although I heard the point being made. What's interesting to me is a) that there is such a thing, which seems very revealing of something about a culture that would need such concepts built into the language, and b) that there seem to be people who think it's inaccurate to interpret the word choice as meaningful. Firstly, since languages have all sorts of concepts built into them, many very specific to their primary culture of use, it seems reasonable that such a thing could exist. Not that I would have thought of it before, since I'm not from a culture where that sort of subtlety functions. Secondly, if that is, indeed, the subtlety of the word choices, where one essentially and inherently includes people, and the other excludes, then I'd kind o...
At that size it hardly seems like surgery would be necessary! At least not for areas reachable with a needle.
ReplyDeleteMIGS, minimally invasive glaucoma surgery. The commercial site for this one is: http://www.glaukos.com/istent
ReplyDeleteJasper Janssen Being careful not to bother people for whom it might be bothersome, we have very tiny needles.
ReplyDeleteCool! And that whole thing is a millimetre long... We live in wondrous times.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it'd do much for my dad (whose cataracts are pretty severe combined with Fuch's dystrophy that will be needing a corneal transplant and as a bonus he's cross eyed so there's only kinda-sorta the "you have a spare" idea), though.
F-L Silver hey, regular cataract surgery sure as heck beats that for squickiness. Not to mention the various variants of keratomy I occasionally look up re above.
ReplyDelete:) I just know eyes creep some people out. Even medical people.
ReplyDelete