Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
However, if the original post had said "foreigners" instead of "internationals", some would have been offended at the derogatory connotation (according to PCness) and we would now be embroiled in a lengthy email exchange... :-} ____________________________________ Douglas Rudder drudder@d... "Let's not argue semantics while arguing semantics, okay?" -- Jeff Lowery -----Original Message----- From: Chris Loschen [mailto:loschen@t...] At 03:12 PM 6/27/03, John Cowan wrote: >Michael Kay scripsit: > > > I didn't perceive any slight at all. Just a linguistic inaccuracy. To > > Len, I am a foreigner or a non-American (and proud of it). I am no more > > "international" than he is. > >"International", like "remote", is a relative-to-self adjective. From >Boston, Perth is remote (indeed, the most remote city); from Midland, W.A., >Perth is anything but remote. Again, this seems to refer to "foreign," not to "international." "International," by definition, means "between" multiple nations. I'm with Michael Kay here -- it is linguistically inaccurate to refer to people outside your home country as "international." It may be PC (somehow "international" sounds less objectionable than "foreign," I suppose?), but that doesn't make the usage correct. Michael Kay is a foreigner to me just as I am a foreigner to him, unless we are both in the same community (of nations, of people interested in XSLT, or whatever). --Chris
|
