I read, "The American Empire has seen a resurgence in recent years."

Is that a good usage? I mean, the Empire hasn't 'seen' a resurgence. It has 'had' one, and observers have seen it happen.

Yes, I know this is picking a nit, but is the source I read technically wrong?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,

In my work I am constantly reading text like "its profile has witnessed a thrilling resurgence recently and is now leading the real estate charge", and so I find "see a resurgence" refreshing literal and uncomplicated.

Going back to the literal root, I suppose it's waves that rise back up. There's not much that literal resurgers can do except resurge; I'd be reluctant to say that a wave literally had a resurgence. So 'have' and 'undergo' are already paddling a little into the metaphorical sea, and 'experience' is only slightly deeper water. What can experience can see. Whatever is personified or reified as having a resurgence has thereby been given other cognitive powers including sight, so they can see their resurgence as they're experiencing it.

What an eloquent discussion, Aput.

This may be one of those times when the terminology is changing, whether or not it is right, Shu. I surely hear that phrase a lot.

So, even the folks at the Wall Street Journal are admitting to our imperialist intentions?

Since America has never, until recently, had Imperial ambitions, let alone an Empire, how could it have a resurgence?

Good point, Richard (and welcome back! ). I agree; we can hardly call it an "American Empire" in the first place.