[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread 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 drudder@drugfacts.com
"Let's not argue semantics while arguing semantics, okay?" -- Jeff Lowery
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Loschen [mailto:loschen@texterity.com]
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
|
