anti-pedanti

This is a really interesting post on the way that language can be used to implicate someone based on the fact that that implicated someone was interrupted and did not correct someone else who was speaking for him, out of turn.

For example…

Innocent Party: “I was thinking that…”

Interrupting, nasty Party: “we should get rid of him.”

If the innocent party does not correct the interrupting, nasty party, then you’ve got a problem legally, because you could say that the innocent party was implicated in whatever “getting rid of him” entailed.

Good stuff.