The sometimes-politicized subtleties of language
Recently seen in The New York Times:
“The Treasury Department’s approval is a grim reminder of the political power of the banks, even as the economy they did so much to damage continues to struggle.”
At issue: the placement of a two-letter word: “to”.
Also at issue: intentionality vs. the results of actions. Did the banks set out to do “so much to damage” the economy? Or did they do “so much damage to” the economy?
(Important note: no quarrel here with the editorial’s general argument that big banks have serious red ink on their hands — and now should sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and lend some fucking money. Just commenting on words.)
Read the full New York Times editorial here.
Dec 15, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
