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...
No, it's entirely valid to say that's it, I'm out. As with any caregiving situation, you HAVE to care for yourself first, or soon there ain't no there there for providing help elsewhere.
ReplyDelete(And sometimes it's the "that's it" that drives people to seek long-needed treatment, though obviously that's not the FIRST resort.)
ReplyDeleteNope, you're entirely sane. If you're being abused by someone with mental illness, you are still being abused.
ReplyDeleteThis was more in the category of delusional, with a side of manipulative thrown in. It was the delusional that really got me.
ReplyDeleteAlways fun.
ReplyDeleteBy which I mean awful.