Statement 66

Is there something to be gained by thinking ‘global’ as an adjectival noun? On the surface this is a risky question to pose since if you look up the word in the 1980 OED, you will read that the word is labeled as “rare” and indeed the dictionary lists only two instances of its use before 1980. And yet we know – living as we do in an ostensibly ‘global age’ - that the word means something more than “round or spherical.” In fact, as an adjective, the word is now practically meaningless in its ubiquity. The thingness, so to speak, of ‘global’ has evaporated: global industries, global science, global news, global education, global florist exchange, global commerce, global village, global warming, etc. etc. Global has gone from rare to ubiquitous. It has become a parasitic – if not a predatory - adjective.  So once again: Is there something to be gained by thinking ‘global’ as an adjectival noun?