Lists Home |
Date Index |
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 email@example.com
"Let's not argue semantics while arguing semantics, okay?" -- Jeff Lowery
From: Chris Loschen [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
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."
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).