Engaging with this section: > I expect some of you, confronted with these examples, are getting pissed off that improper nouns are even a thing. For what it's

Engaging with this section: > I expect some of you, confronted with these examples, are getting pissed off that improper nouns are even a thing. For what it's worth, it pisses me off too. I don't think it's deliberate deceptiveness, but I do think it's the rhetorical equivalent of negligent malpractice. It's a pattern of language usage which casts more shadow than light, and, as far as I can tell, has absolutely no upside unless you can find some benefit to causing misunderstanding and confusion. I think something that causes technical improper nouns to form, is that the common reading and understanding of the phrase is actually imprecise or ambiguous. A field finds the concept useful, and then tries paring down the ambiguity and imprecision to make it even more useful, while also trying to keep -some- form of conciseness, and now you have an improper noun. The tension is between replacing every instance of "preventative care" with "federally mandated fully insured care".