0
Akdom Posted 17 years ago
Vocabulary
The state has "abrogated" to itself
"The assault on civil liberties is not specific to Britain. It is a tendency evidenced throughout the so-called “advanced democracies”. Indeed proclamations of “democracy” increasingly function as a thin veneer, behind which the state has abrogated to itself near autocratic powers. "
abrogate--> (vt) cancel, put aside
I don't understand the composition of these words in this sentence.
I know he meant to say: the state has put aside democracy, and try to acquire near autocratic powers. But there isn't a meaning of "acquire" in "abrogate." So I am confused. How can the state abragated to itself? Could somebody help me to dissect this sentence?
abrogate--> (vt) cancel, put aside
I don't understand the composition of these words in this sentence.
I know he meant to say: the state has put aside democracy, and try to acquire near autocratic powers. But there isn't a meaning of "acquire" in "abrogate." So I am confused. How can the state abragated to itself? Could somebody help me to dissect this sentence?
Top answer
Not a felicitous structure. The writer means'the state has abrogated [the powers granted to the people in a democracy and assigned] to itself near autocratic powers'. It seems to me to be overreaching the limits of elision.
- Not a felicitous structure.
- The writer means'the state has abrogated [the powers granted to the people in a democracy and assigned] to itself near autocratic powers'.
- It seems to me to be overreaching the limits of elision.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
2 Answers
0
.
Not a felicitous structure. The writer means'the state has abrogated [the powers granted to the people in a democracy and assigned] to itself near autocratic powers'. It seems to me to be overreaching the limits of elision.
.
Not a felicitous structure. The writer means'the state has abrogated [the powers granted to the people in a democracy and assigned] to itself near autocratic powers'. It seems to me to be overreaching the limits of elision.
.
00
I fully agree with MrM, but the expression is becoming surprisingly popular. There's got to be a collective misunderstanding of the word. Sometimes a famous person will misuse a little-known word, and everyone says, "Aha!, so that's what that means!" But I don't think we can blame this one on George Bush.
0
Related Questions