When governments apply the term strike, to the refusal to perform manual labour, is this a misappropriation of language?
When governments apply the term strike, to the refusal to perform manual labour, is this a misappropriation of language?
[QUOTE=trokanmariel33;5781054]When governments apply the term strike, to the refusal to perform manual labour, is this a misappropriation of language?[/QUOTE]If a person's job is to perform manual labor and said person refuses to do their job but has not formally quit that job, what else would you call it?
[QUOTE=MajorHoy;5781406]If a person's job is to perform manual labor and said person refuses to do their job but has not formally quit that job, what else would you call it?[/QUOTE]
I would call it nothing.
[QUOTE=trokanmariel33;5781054]When governments apply the term strike, to the refusal to perform manual labour, is this a misappropriation of language?[/QUOTE]
Use of particular terminology, especially in situation which have a huge political slant, exact wording and phraseology serves dual purposes. One is to explain a situation while the other is to put a certain slant on it. I may not agree with this tactic in every case, but it can be a powerful persuasive tool. My advice is to ALWAYS consider the source to doscover what else may be part of their message or statement.
I need context.
[QUOTE=CaptCleghorn;5781775]Use of particular terminology, especially in situation which have a huge political slant, exact wording and phraseology serves dual purposes. One is to explain a situation while the other is to put a certain slant on it. I may not agree with this tactic in every case, but it can be a powerful persuasive tool. My advice is to ALWAYS consider the source to doscover what else may be part of their message or statement.[/QUOTE]
In the case of strike, the situation is never-changing. The role and application of strike is to falsely insinuate being attacked by a group of people, who are doing no such thing.
[QUOTE=Kirby101;5781790]I need context.[/QUOTE]
Country to country, government to government, the term strike is universally applied to insinuate that something is being attacked, as and when people don't do manual labour
Labor uses the term strike when they stop work. It's a universal term, not used only by governments.
"The use of the English word "strike" to describe a work protest was first seen in 1768, when sailors, in support of demonstrations in London, "struck" or removed the topgallant sails of merchant ships at port, thus crippling the ships.[".
[QUOTE=Kirby101;5781948]Labor uses the term strike when they stop work. It's a universal term, not used only by governments.
"The use of the English word "strike" to describe a work protest was first seen in 1768, when sailors, in support of demonstrations in London, "struck" or removed the topgallant sails of merchant ships at port, thus crippling the ships.[".[/QUOTE]
It is a universal term, I agree, however, it's also a misappropriation of language
[QUOTE=trokanmariel33;5782409]It is a universal term, I agree, however, it's also a misappropriation of language[/QUOTE]How is it a misappropriation of the language?
[QUOTE=MajorHoy;5782556]How is it a misappropriation of the language?[/QUOTE]
To not do manual labour doesn't mean that one is physically attacking someone or something
[QUOTE=trokanmariel33;5782576]To not do manual labour doesn't mean that one is physically attacking someone or something[/QUOTE]
It doesnt have to. Many words like Strike have more then one meaning. Like the word conductor. Could have a meaning in electrical currents, a guy running a train or streetcar or it could mean a guy directing music.
When I hear someone say "Oh that guy on stage is a great conductor I dont think "Oh they must mean he is great at passing electrical currents and then accuse them of misappropriation of the language
So using a word that has multiple meanings in not a misappropriation of the language.
[QUOTE=babyblob;5782584]It doesnt have to. Many words like Strike have more then one meaning. Like the word conductor. Could have a meaning in electrical currents, a guy running a train or streetcar or it could mean a guy directing music.
When I hear someone say "Oh that guy on stage is a great conductor I dont think "Oh they must mean he is great at passing electrical currents and then accuse them of misappropriation of the language
So using a word that has multiple meanings in not a misappropriation of the language.[/QUOTE]
The word's meaning, as applies to government intervention as and when people don't do work is a misappropriation. The phrase, to go on strike is a misappropriation.
[QUOTE=trokanmariel33;5782599]The word's meaning, as applies to government intervention as and when people don't do work is a misappropriation. [B]The phrase, to go on strike is a misappropriation.[/B][/QUOTE][URL="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/strike"]https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/strike[/URL]
[QUOTE=trokanmariel33;5782409]It is a universal term, I agree, however, it's also a misappropriation of language[/QUOTE]
I agree as the unspoken aspect is organized or coordinated action. A person who walks off a job in a matter of conscience is following only themselves.