"collateral damage"

[Jonathan Lighter]

I've never heard of "neutracide," but it actually sounds good for you.

Like "enhanced radiation weapons."

(GB reveals "Neutracide" solely as a brand name. Surely not for....)

JL

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Eric Nielsen <ericbarnak at gmail.com> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Eric Nielsen <ericbarnak at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: "collateral damage"
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Perhaps this has been brought up before, but
> I was doing a little research on "collateral damage" and came
> upon "neutracide". New to me.
>
>
> "However, the steering group also found that "the avoidance of collateral
> damage, or neutracide, is a secondary consideration", and that "the primary
> focus would remain improving operational effectiveness, while reducing the
> risk of fratricide (first) and neutracide (firmly second)"."
>
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghan-civilians-pay-lethal-price-for-new-policy-on-air-strikes-2329180.html?service=Print
>
> Eric
>
>  On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:34 AM, Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > -----------------------
> > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:       Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
> > Subject:      Re: "collateral damage"
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > True, but I think there's ordinarily a formal distinction between
> > "intentional" and "unavoidable." In the context of unscripted speech in
> an
> > operational situation, the distinction might easily be blurred. But the
> PBS
> > writer is narrating history and presumably employing _le mot juste_.
> >
> > To use the PBS terminology, "collateral damage" in WWII was so generally
> > intentional that I don't think the phrase even existed. Much of the point
> > of
> > strategic bombing was to kill, main, and dispossess as many civilians as
> > possible, so as to to disrupt the enemy's economy, industry, and will to
> > fight. Except in some very unusual circumstances, nothing was
> "collateral."
> >
> > The tone of the PBS promo (and I haven't seen the actual program) was
> that
> > everybody "knows" that "collateral damage" means "civilian deaths and
> > injuries (and property loss)."  To ask, "how much is intentional" is
> almost
> > like asking "how much isn't collateral damage?"
> >
> > Of course, maybe that's what they really were asking, with a little
> > rhetorical irony.  But it didn't sound that way.  It sounded as though,
> for
> > the writers at PBS, "collateral damage" no longer has any policy
> reference.
> > It just means civilian destruction, unavoidable or otherwise.
> >
> > Beyond that, my impression is that the story will focus on rape as
> military
> > policy in Bosnia. If so, the victims would hardly be "collateral damage,"
> > in
> > the technical sense, by any stretch of the imagination.
> >
> >
> > JL
> >
> > --
> > "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the
> truth."
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>



--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org