President Trump got in the face of ABC’s Rachel Scott after she asked him a question about the rationale behind his national midterm voter bribe.
“Mr. President, on the checks: The U.S. is still $40 trillion in debt. If your economic policies are working, why do you need an incentive for people to turn out to vote?” she asked Thursday night.
…
lunge (plural lunges)
I guess I don’t understand your objection.
As the story proceeds to point out.
Lunge has a definite implication of suddenness and/or violence, even hinted at by your definition. The man couldn’t lunge if his life depended on it. I take umbrage with the exaggeration of the headline when the man’s behaviour is already repulsive enough that we don’t need to embellish. And it, frankly, reeks of the kind of embellishment he’d do.
If anyone watched the same video as me and can call that a “lunge”, we simply disagree on the definition of words I guess.
Quite a hill to die on.
I’m fairly passionate about words, and I think words have a lot of power. When I see a headline saying he “lunged” at a reporter, I was expecting to see something very, very different. I have zero doubt that the word was used intentionally to draw exactly that kind of attention. Which beyond being annoying to me personally, it also undermines their credibility.
Word.
I went to the dictionary so that the definition wouldn’t be “mine.” “Sudden” is in that definition, it’s not an implication or a hint.
The “hinted at” part was referring to the connotation of violence, not the sudden part. Also didn’t think my use of “your” would be the key part of my comment, but I meant that in insomuch as “the definition you supplied”.
Neither of which, I think, dispels our disagreement, really.