Timeline for the world’s richest man OR the richest person in the world?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13, 2018 at 19:11 | comment | added | Andrew | @chrylis fair enough. Edited | |
| Oct 13, 2018 at 19:11 | history | edited | Andrew | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 38 characters in body
|
| Oct 13, 2018 at 19:09 | comment | added | Andrew | @Barmar no idea, but nevertheless that's the reason for the qualification | |
| Oct 13, 2018 at 18:23 | comment | added | 1006a | I'd say it's confusing because historically the richest person in the world has virtually always been a man (some ancient monarchs may have bucked the trend, but so far as I can tell it has not been a woman in recent history). So that sentence is more aspirational than offering any practical information. Now, a sentence that said something like "Jane Doe has just become not only the world’s richest woman, but the richest person in the world" would really be news. I hope it happens in my lifetime. | |
| Oct 13, 2018 at 17:45 | comment | added | Barmar | Hasn't the richest person in the world almost always been the richest man? Why would Time feel the need to emphasize this distinction? It seems like they might have meant to say "not only richest in America, but richest in the world", since the two are frequently distinct. | |
| Oct 13, 2018 at 17:03 | comment | added | chrylis -cautiouslyoptimistic- | Not sure what exactly you mean by "no neutral gender", as it is perfectly cromulent, and English has an assortment of nouns (such as person) that are neutral. | |
| Oct 13, 2018 at 14:57 | history | answered | Andrew | CC BY-SA 4.0 |