AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
-- Dear Mr. Buckley: In a recent column, you wrote: "The Taliban has taken unmarried women detected in pregnancy and buried them to neck level before execution." Your sentence reminded me of an unrelated problem with English.
To mean "unmarried pregnant women," why is English so infecund as to need three words? You appear to have grappled with "unmarried pregnant women" before conceiving five words, "unmarried women detected in pregnancy," as if you could avoid propagating adjectives by begetting precision.
In the weaker sex of both genders, you may have created righteousness for unmarried women detected in pregnancy, illegitimacy for unmarried women detected as pregnant, and pariahdom for unmarried pregnant women.
James V. Stallings
Sikeston, Mo.
Dear Mr. Stallings: Why should you not need three words to designate three conditions (one of them an attribute)? 1) It is a she; 2) She is unmarried; 3) She is pregnant. Now if she is ostracized, that is the activity of others, she being the object of the ostracism. The weakness of the sex implies nothing, unless you want to get into the unostracizeability of pregnant men, and that ends you up with pregnant men in your calculations.
I would give up, if I were you. I do.
Source: HighBeam Research, Notes & Asides.(Brief Article)(Column)