“Roszenowy” is the most crucial word of the 3rd Republic. The 1981 Polish Dictionary defines them in a sense that we do not usage at all today: “in civilian law: the right to request a certain individual to behave.”
In 1989, neo-Semanticism, defined in today's dictionary as “expressed in unjustified or excessive demands” (and inactive second, the archaic meaning of 30 years ago, “referring to legal claims”, is mentioned). What would we do without that neo-semantism!
We'd be poor, due to the fact that it's fantastic to have a word-tag that we can put on someone's mouth. alternatively of justifying why we think his claims are wrong, we do a “pac!” tag.
And it's already known that these claims are incorrect due to the fact that they are wrong. In a way from the right ones, for ours.
I feel sorry for George Urban, to whom it would make life so much easier if he could accuse the opposition of "propriety". He couldn't due to the fact that there hasn't been that neo-semantism yet.
It is evident that he missed this word very much on 10 January 1984, erstwhile he accused the underground trade unions at 1 of his celebrated Tuesday conferences that "they only make demands without caring about improving production." The thought that trade unions are expected to care about "improvement of production" is, of course, fundamentally stupid, but here you can see the beginnings of thought processes, leading to the creation of neo-semantism.
Who invented it? chaotic guess: It could have been somewhere during the circular table. individual threw a “well, don’t be so claimful” to individual due to the fact that he had a subconscious vague memory of specified a concept from the time of legal practice.
In any case, already in the first issue of “Gazeta Wyborcza” the word is utilized in a sense akin to neo-Semantic, although you can inactive see an unnaturally wide scope as it happens erstwhile a fresh word is born. According to my humble RISERCH, the word first came in the 4th issue of May 11, 1989.
Who was the claiming trade union then? Farmers? No, russian diplomats.
Economist Janusz Jankowiak wrote about the negotiations on Polish debt and warned the authorities not to exaggerate their demands on Western banks, due to the fact that it would be "suggested as the attitude of russian diplomacy".
In July, Michał Boni wroteWhat should be “Solidarity” in capitalism. He utilized this word in the sense as if it were halfway between archaicism and neo-Semanticism, due to the fact that he wished for “Solidarity” to be “effective in action”, “concurrently pro-reformative and assertive”.
Very interesting. Applying today's importance, it would appear that Boni wishes the trade unions to make "unwarranted or excessive" demands, while being effective and pro-reformative! The birth of a fresh word is simply a fascinating phenomenon.
In the “Gazeta Wyborcza” publication, the top contribution to the fixation of the established canon of “suggestivity” was given to Teresa Boguck, who devoted the concept of “suggestivity” to 2 large public texts – “Attention! – a thing about a claim attitude” (29.08.1989) and "Nostalgia for Solidarity" (31.10.1989).
In the former, she defined the "suspension stand" as "something of a kind of involuntary inactivity", suggesting that he created communism in Poles. In the second, she warned against idealizing the first "Solidarity" – "her sacred image should not remove from her memory (...) the claims reflexes, like the conflict for free Saturdays".
Even these 2 meanings, however, do not fit together – the fight for free Saturdays" is expected to be a "much passiveness"? In any case, the claimability is already unambiguously be. It is not only known what is fine, but 1 can imagine that as usual "pro-reformerness".
I don't like that neo-semantism due to the fact that it doesn't make sense. In all social conflict, there are conflicting claims. erstwhile we call 1 of them "suggestive" and thus by definition unjust – we just fake the discussion, in fact replacing it with a shot from the tag.
The discussion begins to become interesting only erstwhile we begin to justify why the opposing party’s claims seem excessive or unfair to us. Unfortunately, the easy word-pick makes the hard art of substantive justification in decline among the 3rd Republic publicists.
