• By david on August 13, 2009 @ 1:26 am No Comments

    Looking through some old mail and found a link I had sent around. It was a NY Times Op-Ed piece about the troubling use of illegal as a noun.

    Every last bit of the article is right on, and despite being nearly two years old, it’s is still just as relevant today. For example:

    Since the word modifies not the crime but the whole person, it goes too far. It spreads, like a stain that cannot wash out. It leaves its target diminished as a human, a lifetime member of a presumptive criminal class. People are often surprised to learn that illegal immigrants have rights. Really? Constitutional rights? But aren’t they illegal? Of course they have rights: they have the presumption of innocence and the civil liberties that the Constitution wisely bestows on all people, not just citizens.

    Right on.

    Read the whole article.

    Tags: , , , , , ,

  • By david on July 29, 2009 @ 9:07 pm No Comments

    A NY Times piece today on the Microsoft/Yahoo search deal contained a usage of “reticence” where “reluctance” would have better.

    After tense, months-long negotiations, the deal was derailed, in part by Mr. Yang’s reticence,…

    They would no doubt justify it by pointing to the entry, in their query.nytimes.com service which seems to use the American Heritage Dictionary.

    But it still pisses me off. I’m much more in agreement with traditional purists on this point: Reticence is a subset of reluctance referring only to speech.

    Sigh…

    Tags: , , , ,