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...
Abdullah II, King of Jordan was there, for crying out loud. He and Netanyahu are definitely targets.
ReplyDeleteHe even brought his wife. Not important, per se. I would think it was a given that the PMs of England, France, and Germany were all targets, as well. I mean, it's a crummy part of the job, but it's a part of the job, isn't it? The being a target, I mean. Seriously, ask Clinton or Bush or both of them to go, then. Two former presidents would have been ok.
ReplyDeleteThe whole thing was a target, but Netanyahu was a particular target for the obvious reason, and Abdulluh was a particular target because he can now be considered an abject traitor, collaborator, and apostate by the types of people who originally went on that rampage.
ReplyDelete