07-09-2002, 07:05 PM
|
|
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: California
Posts: 889
|
Well said. Jackson made the "unliterate" comment in regards to Bush' equation of the recent school voucher ruling with the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education. Jackson's point is that any "literate" reading of both decisions would not lead someone to equate the two.
Quote:
Originally posted by gothweb
"Illiterate" is the negative of "Literate". So, technically, it can be used in any case where you mean "not literate"...
However, "Literate" has a few possible connotations. The most common is very literal-- "can read"-- but there are others. Being competent with language, being well-read, etc. So, by extension, not being "Literate" (being Illiterate, Unliterate, Non-Literate, whatever) can mean a lot of different things.
My guess is that Jackson wanted to say that President Bush is not a very intelligent or well-read man. (This is petty much true.) Had he said "Bush is illiterate" he would have been saying he couldn't read, as that is the commonest definition of the word-- and also untrue. Thus, to avoid appearing to be saying something outright false, he used an alternate-- and viable-- construction. Just because "Illiterate" is a word doesn't mean "Unliterate" can't be.
So, I guess what I am saying is this... Besides calling a spade a spade, what did Jackson do wrong here?
|
|
|
|