Yesterday was the deadline for the "word of the year" proposing. That is, the jury of the "language critical action word of the year" will consult in the coming days and present the world the worst word that 2009 was the worst and most reprehensible. The funny
is that the blog nagging starts now. Before a word is spoken, clamor and complain and whine, the first for over the jury and the worst word and do have a very different . If we note that it had not even with the language already, then some very strange arguments are clear, the people can remember.
so "worst word" no "worst word" only knows because no piece of paper "Unrose. This populist peasant trick is popular but stupid because even list for example, " absurd", " ingratitude " knows "accident" un un un. The one un-noun is not only a noun not an even white paper. Hopefully. But he can forget it even if sometimes it just fits into the argument.
worse than the Unargument is the absurdity in the use of linguistics. The so slip thought the speech critics namely, on their side. This is factually incorrect. There on the side of the linguistic critical action only a reference to the linguistics and in an essay, written by Rudolf Hoberg. Neither the statute nor the reasons reveal anything linguistic.
This is not planned. One has to distinguish between linguistics and language criticism properly to assess things. The strongest criticism of the critique of language - even in Dolf Sternberger - comes from the linguists. The fault with the language policy monopoly, language critics want to be, because a supposed right to compare this with a supposedly morally wrong language. This is what finally makes
list itself appoint "greed" to his word of the year. He is a supposedly true definition and complains because everyone including falsely something else understands. (Actually that's not even that, do what the Unwortjäger. It is even stranger) I find that silly. But I can even try to guess what the judges think of themselves this time. My top candidates are (with the prediction of the reasons):
climate skeptics (obscured the fact that a scientific consensus is rejected completely behind the really scientific skepticism)
bubble (Conceals caused by human activity, economic injustices behind a pseudo-scientific-technical term)
environmental premium (the purchase of a car is not unweltschonendes action. This action to award a prize can not also be environmentally friendly)
war-like conditions (as avoidance of the word war is the reality of life of people play down the war is that only international law relevant category there)
... or, to put it with Olaf Thon, a surprise candidate for the still not settled.
