You did it! We have a solution for more neutral wording above! If you had said "Fr. Martins said he..." it wouldn't carry nearly the emotional weight as the words "allegedly" and "claimed", both of which tend to insinuate disbelief in today's culture (especially when used redundantly in the same sentence). Maybe that's just me, but I don't think I'm alone in that assessment.
You did it! We have a solution for more neutral wording above! If you had said "Fr. Martins said he..." it wouldn't carry nearly the emotional weight as the words "allegedly" and "claimed", both of which tend to insinuate disbelief in today's culture (especially when used redundantly in the same sentence). Maybe that's just me, but I don't think I'm alone in that assessment.
The words have been used to neutralize things when it is quite clear that the things are not neutral, so that they are losing (if they have not already lost) their neutralizing capacity.
There are a number of investigations that have declared a bishop innocent of sexual misconduct but said that they were "imprudent". Any bets on how long it will take for that to become a euphemism?
You did it! We have a solution for more neutral wording above! If you had said "Fr. Martins said he..." it wouldn't carry nearly the emotional weight as the words "allegedly" and "claimed", both of which tend to insinuate disbelief in today's culture (especially when used redundantly in the same sentence). Maybe that's just me, but I don't think I'm alone in that assessment.
it's helpful feedback.
This is actually a good point. I think the words had different connotations even a decade ago.
The words have been used to neutralize things when it is quite clear that the things are not neutral, so that they are losing (if they have not already lost) their neutralizing capacity.
There are a number of investigations that have declared a bishop innocent of sexual misconduct but said that they were "imprudent". Any bets on how long it will take for that to become a euphemism?