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...
I'm guessing now would be a bad time to tell you it's 72ºF here?
ReplyDeleteOh, no, that's fine. I just don't get this seemingly recent trend of calling things ice pellets when it is obviously sleet! In this case, I am a lumper, not a splitter.
ReplyDeleteIn some dialects, sleet is what I would call "wintry mix", and it's not sleet if it's all frozen. Which I think is weird, but might explain the trend away from the term "sleet", to provide geographic consistency.
ReplyDelete