A friend in the media emailed me this morning: “Everyone keeps talking about hostages having been taken in Paris. Doesn\u2019t the word ‘hostage’ imply a demand on the part of the terrorists? They made no demands; they intended all along to slaughter them. Wouldn\u2019t captive be a more appropriate word, or am I over-thinking this?”<\/p>\n
I replied: “You are definitely right about ‘hostage’ being the wrong word and for the reasons you say. I would say that ‘captive’ is also the wrong word, because captives are prisoners – not intended victims of murder. At the very least, one ‘holds’ a captive for a predetermined period of time; this was not the case yesterday. To see how ‘captive’ is the wrong word: One would not say that a person killed in his\/her or another person’s home is a captive – same for a person killed in a restaurant in a drive-by. I think ‘intended victim’ is the closest. There is no single word for ‘terrorist victim,’ and it seems discourteous to refer repeatedly to the slain as ‘terrorist victims’ – two awful words to describe innocent souls.”<\/p>\n
My friend’s reply: “Alas, ‘intended victim’ is clumsy.”<\/p>\n
True.<\/p>\n
About this one can truly say, There is no word.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A friend in the media emailed me this morning: “Everyone keeps talking about hostages having been taken in Paris. Doesn\u2019t the word ‘hostage’ imply a demand on the part of the terrorists? They made no demands; they intended all along … Continue reading