English language abuses

[davjohns 1]

I just saw a piece on the news that sparked this in me...

English. It's a pretty precise language when you want it to be. We have politicians and activists who misuse it on a regular basis.

"You have a right to quality healthcare" is spoken of frequently. Where is this 'right' enumerated? In the US Constitution? In the Holy Bible or other religious document? The US Constitution talks about 'certain inalienable rights' that are granted by the creator. It attempts to recognize and codify these rights. Why did the Founding Fathers miss this one (if it exists)?

"He was killed by a shotgun" or similar language is used in the media. Say it out loud. It sounds familiar. Now, say, "He was killed by a knife". It doesn't sound right. Because it isn't. It was killed BY a person...WITH a shotgun or knife. I've read whole articles about someone being killed by a firearm without ever mentioning another person was involved. Like the firearms are roaming the streets in gangs, looking for victims.

Government benefits are now called 'entitlements'. Entitlement means it is owed to you. How did you earn this 'entitlement'? I am entitled to my paycheck. I am entitled to redress before the courts. I am entitled to certain things enumerated in the US Constitution by virtue of being granted them by my Creator. I am not entitled to money I did not earn. I may have put money into the system and be entitled to the social insurance that creates. If I didn't put into the sytem, I am due nothing. If my input was not commensurate with my outtake, I did not earn the excess and am not entitled to it.

Please don't get me started on the whole 'undocumented immigrants' debacle.

I'm not really trying to argue for whether we should do certain things or not. Just call it what it is. Don't re-word things so they sound like something they aren't. If you like all those government benefits; fine. If you like illegal aliens and want to make them all legal; fine. Argue for what you want. Don't try to change the argument by pretending something is a bird of paradise when it is really a frog.

Am I the only one who sees this in everyday life?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[wmw999 2,171]

Oh, I see them too.

I think life is wonderful; I'm strongly pro-life, except that I also believe in the right to a safe abortion.

I'm all for America, I think it's a wonderful place (and I've lived in others to compare). Does that make me a patriot?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DanG 1]

Quote

"You have a right to quality healthcare" is spoken of frequently. Where is this 'right' enumerated? In the US Constitution? In the Holy Bible or other religious document? The US Constitution talks about 'certain inalienable rights' that are granted by the creator. It attempts to recognize and codify these rights. Why did the Founding Fathers miss this one (if it exists)?

For someone bitching about precision in language, you should at least be accurate about where the phrase "certain unalienable rights" appears. Hint: it's not the Constitution. And it's unalienable, not inalienable.
Anyway, "you have a right to quality healthcare," is not an abuse of language. It is an opinion. It is clearly stated. You obviously disagree with that opinion, but the putative speaker is not using any tricks of language to make his point.

Quote

"He was killed by a shotgun" or similar language is used in the media.

You're just making this up.

Quote

Government benefits are now called 'entitlements'. Entitlement means it is owed to you. How did you earn this 'entitlement'?

Yes, some "entitlements" are not earned. That doesn't make the person getting them less entitled to them. If you're entitled to one peanut a day according to the "One Peanut for Every American" law, why is calling it an entitlement inaccurate? If someone is entitled to it, it's an entitlement. Look at the root of the word. Knights are granted their titles by the King. They are entitled. If the government grants you something (earned or unearned) you are entitled. Benefit is actually a less accurate word.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

I don't think they are so much misuses of the English language as they are failures of logic and puffery.

Talk of "rights" is but one of them. There is no corrollary to say, the right to free speech or the right to remain silent - which are codified. Not even something like HIPAA - with a right to privacy of medical info.

"Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are similar things. Both slogans that don't hit on the actual topic.

I hit on puffery because quite often the stuff is not objectively verifiable or unverifiable. Which is why it's such big news when a politician says something that is outright provably false (i.e., the President's ill-considered statement that the SCOTUS striking a law would be unusual and unprecedented).

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[davjohns 1]

Ha! Good catch. You're right on both counts. I started to google right quick to keep myself straight and then got distracted. It is 'unalienable'. That word always seemed awkward to me and I change it in my head. It was also the Declaration of Independence vice US Constitution.

Thanks for the correction.

As to 'rights'...these things are not stated as "I believe you have a right'. It is often stated as a fact.

I assure you I am not making anything up. Now that you have read this, I expect you will spot it for yourself. It's odd and annoying when you recognize it.

As to it being things I disagree with...you are right. These are instances that prick my attention at the moment. Please feel free to bring up instances where the same thing is done by people of other opinions. They happen. I recognize and deplore them when they do. Just nothing springs to mind at the moment. I make no argument that one side or another of any issue does this more. I think it happens regularly among all political persuasions. And I think it weakens the legitimate arguments of whatever side is committing this offense. The examples I gave tend toward the conservative because I tend toward the conservative. Conservatives are at least as guilty of this as anyone else.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I assure you I am not making anything up. Now that you have read this, I expect you will spot it for yourself. It's odd and annoying when you recognize it.

I don't know, I usually hear, "A man was shot," or, "a man was stabbed." Maybe I'll hear it your way more now that you've mentioned it.

Quote

As to 'rights'...these things are not stated as "I believe you have a right'. It is often stated as a fact.

I think that's just how people say things. When people say, "The Redskins are going all they way this year," they really mean, "I believe the Redskins are going all the way this year." It's their opinion, but it doesn't make a very persuasive argument if you have to qualify every sentance with, "I believe."

- Dan G

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

I just saw a piece on the news that sparked this in me...

English. It's a pretty precise language when you want it to be. We have politicians and activists who misuse it on a regular basis.

"You have a right to quality healthcare" is spoken of frequently. Where is this 'right' enumerated? In the US Constitution? In the Holy Bible or other religious document? The US Constitution talks about 'certain inalienable rights' that are granted by the creator. It attempts to recognize and codify these rights. Why did the Founding Fathers miss this one (if it exists)?

The USA is signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is binding on all member states of the United Nations and incorporated into International Law.

Article 25
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

In fact you have a bunch of RIGHTS that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or its amendments.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[davjohns 1]

Okie doke. Does it say that everyone has a right to healthcare?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Okie doke. Does it say that everyone has a right to healthcare?

Why don't you look it up and see?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[davjohns 1]

Somehow, I knew you were going to do that.

Edit: I don't know if you went back and added the quote. I just saw it.

Wow. I fully concede your point. I fully disagree with that language, but your point is obviously well supported. I need to go read that document. It seems completely off base to me. Thanks for cluing me in to it.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[billvon 2,473]

>"You have a right to quality healthcare" is spoken of frequently. Where is this 'right' enumerated?

It's a right some people feel they have. It's a valid use of the word.

Imagine you go down to a car dealership to pick up a car. They said they'd sell it to you, you gave them a big down payment, you signed the contract - but now even though it's sitting right there they won't give it to you, because someone else offered them more. "I have a right to that car - I gave you a down payment!" you might claim.

Now, there is no Constitutional right to own a car. It's not called out in the Bible or in the State constitution. At most you might claim that per contract law you have a right to pick up and pay for the car. That would be a valid use of the word as well, even though a court might disagree.

>"He was killed by a shotgun" or similar language is used in the media. Say it out loud.
>It sounds familiar. Now, say, "He was killed by a knife". It doesn't sound right.
>Because it isn't. It was killed BY a person...

Again, it is a valid use of language. My father was once cut by a knife and needed hand surgery. I was once hit by a car while biking. A storm once cancelled an airplane trip I was going to take. Valid uses. Indeed, saying "I was hit by a car" is more descriptive, and a better description of the event, than saying "I was hit by a woman."

You seem to disagree with the philosophy behind the words, which is fine. But that's a little different than improper use of language. The very fact that you disagree with the philosophy behind it means that it was a good use of language; you understood the speaker's intent and disagreed.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

>"You have a right to quality healthcare" is spoken of frequently. Where is this 'right' enumerated?

It's a right some people feel they have. It's a valid use of the word.

Imagine you go down to a car dealership to pick up a car. They said they'd sell it to you, you gave them a big down payment, you signed the contract - but now even though it's sitting right there they won't give it to you, because someone else offered them more. "I have a right to that car - I gave you a down payment!" you might claim.

Now, there is no Constitutional right to own a car. It's not called out in the Bible or in the State constitution. At most you might claim that per contract law you have a right to pick up and pay for the car. That would be a valid use of the word as well, even though a court might disagree.

Remember that we also have rights and obligations that are not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, on account of treaties that we have entered into. See Article VI of the US Constituion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[davjohns 1]

I'm fully aware that there are legal documents outside the constitution that bear on rights.

This document, however, is new to me in its particulars. And I find it very interesting. It seems to claim that anywhere I go in the world, I have a right to be taken care of (paraphrased, of course). I'm very curious how this is economically or socially tennable.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Thunderbow 1]

A little off the way this thread is going but just for the heck of it, the only way to be sure you don't die in a canopy collision, is not to have one. You can't survive one if you never have one.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.

[davjohns 1]

I had to read that twice, but you are right.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

"He was killed by a shotgun" or similar language is used in the media.

You're just making this up.

"Danziger Bridge shooting victim killed by shotgun blast to back of the head, shot several other times, pathologist says"
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/07/danziger_bridge_shooting_victi_2.html

"Gabe Ben-Meir was killed by a shotgun blast to his head"
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-12/justice/california.shotgun.robberies_1_shotgun-robber-shotgun-blast-mtv?_s=PM:CRIME

"Shotgun blast killed man in Oriole Park, police say"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/05/10/toronto-oriole-park-homicide-investigation.html

""Jane Doe" in Tennessee Was Killed by a Shotgun Blast to the Head While Helping Rob a House"
http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/12/jane_doe_in_tennessee_was_kill.php

"Teenager was killed by a shotgun blast Monday night in Northeast El Paso"
http://pillsbottlesneedles.blogspot.com/2009/11/teenager-was-killed-by-shotgun-blast.html

"One protester was killed by a shotgun blast Friday as police forces attempted to disperse a crowd"
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/demonstrator-killed-police-protests-outside-interior-ministry

It would appear that shotguns are running amok all over the world, creating mayhem whereever they go.

Gun owners: Do you know where YOUR shotgun is?

[DanG 1]

They all say, "killed by shotgun blast" not, "killed by shotgun." Big difference.

- Dan G

[Skyrad 0]

Not being funny but whats so weird about 'undocumented immigrants'.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[davjohns 1]

'Illegal alien' is a status that demands criminal sanctions. 'Undocumented immigrant' sounds like a clerical oversight.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

They all say, "killed by shotgun blast" not, "killed by shotgun." Big difference.

really? ok then


It would appear that blasts are running amok all over the world, creating mayhem whereever they go.

shotgun owners: Do you know where YOUR blast is?




I think the point is that the victims were killed by another person. So semantics over 'shotgun' vs 'blast' being the attacker is silly.


Death - by Snu Snu

.............................................

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Not being funny but whats so weird about 'undocumented immigrants'.

would you be happier with "illegal immigrants"

I'm don't know why that's such a big deal. A law is broken, therefore that immigration action was conducted in an illegal fashion.


undocumented really does come across as the individual is just pending some paperwork completion already in progress, for those that actually fit that category, I am fine with it, but that's not how it's applied

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[oldwomanc6 38]

Yep!

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[oldwomanc6 38]

Quote

Quote

They all say, "killed by shotgun blast" not, "killed by shotgun." Big difference.

really? ok then


It would appear that blasts are running amok all over the world, creating mayhem whereever they go.

shotgun owners: Do you know where YOUR blast is?




I think the point is that the victims were killed by another person. So semantics over 'shotgun' vs 'blast' being the attacker is silly.


Death - by Snu Snu

.............................................

Yep!

And if I clocked an attacker over the head with the butt, I would still know where my butt is! To say nothing of my clock.

No language is precise (I would say extremely precise for emphasis, but precise is an ultimate.) All languages have usages which aren't precise, but we all (who are fluent in that language, anyway) understand what is meant. Usually, only those more interested in arguing will point out the irony or apparent inconsistency.

I'm not sure that English is a precise language at all. But it is fun!

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[DanG 1]

Would you prefer, "killed by pellets/slug penetrating the body at a high rate of speed due to very recent ejection from local shotgun, said shotgun recently ejecting the pellets/slug because someone activated the shotgun's trigger mechanism?"

I realize everything relating to guns not put out by the NRA is assumed to be anti-gun, but I really fail to see why, "killed by shotgun blast," is inaccurate. The blast was the direct reason for the victim's death. How about if all news stories were edited to say, "killed by shotgun blast which was the result of a person pulling the shotgun's trigger?" I think most people can make that leap all by themselves.

- Dan G

[davjohns 1]

The rapist was killed by John Rich weilding the new Kel Tec shotgun with dual 7 round magazines. Man, did he have some firepower in a compact package!

Just saw this new weapon and wanted to work it in somewhere.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.