tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post1105614322288441719..comments2024-03-12T22:19:32.339-04:00Comments on The New Arthurian Economics: Thinking in the canThe Arthurianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-12174903074057308912017-07-26T18:18:43.460-04:002017-07-26T18:18:43.460-04:00Hi Michael. DeLong's "a humanity" bo...Hi Michael. DeLong's "a humanity" bothered me a lot. I like your solution. (I didn't even notice the bigger problem with "humanistic".)<br /><br />I find I'm a lot more willing to point out problems I find with the writing, since Paul Romer opened that door. Being clear is as much a part of the process as working out the economics of a situation.<br /><br />But I still have too many problems with my own clarity.<br />The Arthurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2098432983500045934.post-51074583283675722262017-07-26T12:42:57.541-04:002017-07-26T12:42:57.541-04:00I think you have good reasons for your exasperatio...I think you have good reasons for your exasperation with this fellow’s writing.<br /><br />I’ll add two more details about this sentence: “While economics is not a humanity, it is humanistic.” <i>Humanity</i> is indeed a singular form for referring to a branch of learning (the <i>OED</i> has citations for it), but “one of the humanities” would keep the reader from wondering whether “a humanity” is a thing and looking it up. And the writer misuses “humanistic.” That something is about people (like, say, crowd control) doesn’t make it humanistic.<br />Michael Leddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05547732736861224886noreply@blogger.com