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 mean, Pullman and Younger abstentions, I learned those way back in 2nd year law school, and since we litigate only very rarely in federal court (and not in context where those would arise), I would be hard-pressed to give a coherent explanation of those if I hadn't been studying likely topics a neophyte district court judge should be familiar with, which he absolutely should have been.
ReplyDeleteMotion in limine, on the other hand... Jesus Christ, dude, hide your face in shame.