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...
Why are you subjecting yourself to that torture?
ReplyDeleteHeck no, it was an ad on another channel and I was all what?! Are they making that up? Nope. It's what they are calling it. Smh.
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with that term? It seemed appropriate to me. The debate itself I'm sure had plenty wrong with it.
ReplyDeleteI pretty much only know of it as a boxing term. Even if it is generalizable to other sports, it seems highly affected and really reaching to bill it this way. I forget what they did the first time, but it wasn't this ridiculously awkward. it also implies even more, to me, that this is a form of entertainment and useful information on someone who might be running our country has no place here.
ReplyDeleteI think before most people were calling it the JV debate, which amused me, but I'm not sure if it's actually better.
ReplyDelete