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 figure that the Dems are gonna have a circular firing squad regardless (because they always do) and they just need to get it out of the way fast because there's shit to do.
ReplyDeleteFor a bunch of supposed intellectuals, I'd really like to send them a copy of Aristotle, or whichever Greek it was who talked about ethos, logos, and pathos. I mean, none of this is news, folks. It's been written about and discussed for thousands of years. Pathos was manipulated big time, and it won significantly over logos and ethos. Get a clue, and do the job. Please and thank you.
ReplyDelete