{"id":3547,"date":"2005-01-16T14:34:50","date_gmt":"2005-01-16T18:34:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/01\/16\/inflected-reiteration-and-ad-"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:58:03","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:58:03","slug":"inflected-reiteration-and-ad-ads","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/01\/16\/inflected-reiteration-and-ad-ads\/","title":{"rendered":"inflected reiteration (and ad ads)"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n


\n
A<\/FONT> pet peeve around here is the deterioration in the ability of words <\/FONT><\/FONT>to actually <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
communicate a shared meaning.   One annoying symptom is the <\/FONT>increasing use of what<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
I call inflected reiteration<\/EM> to help the listener understand <\/FONT>the speaker’s meaning.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Examples:   <\/FONT>“She’s his <\/FONT>girlfriend<\/EM> girlfriend.”  “We’ll, it’s not work<\/EM> work, but .. .”   <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“That movie was <\/FONT>bad<\/EM> bad.”   Or, “Those <\/FONT>aren’t fact<\/EM> facts.”  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
J. Craig Williams <\/FONT><\/A>of May It Please the Court<\/EM> may be adding “It’s an ad<\/EM> ad” to this <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
baneful list, with his recent <\/FONT>posting<\/FONT><\/A> (Jan. 15, 2005), where he asks “<\/FONT>Are blogs advertising?<\/FONT><\/A>” <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and answers in the affirmative (that is: “yes<\/EM> yes”).  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Craig’s reasoning includes observations such as:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n