The word "announcement" is being used here to describe something that hasn't been announced yet, which is a linguistic contradiction and therefore this thread shouldn't exist in this board category — let me explain why everything you think you unders

Opening thread commentary.

I agree with this entirely and would like to add a few more points. The term "ann

True but I'm going to keep posting here anyway because this thread will probably go viral and

True but it's probably just a typo on their end.

The categorical error here isn't just a semantic slip — it's a structural category mistake that invalidates the entire premise of your thread, which I will now demonstrate by dismantling each clause individually rather than indulging in rhetorical flourish:

First, "announcement" is not a temporally bound noun. You are operating under what linguists would call an archaic presentist fallacy where every word must refer to the moment it's uttered. A "pending announcement," a "draft announcement," and "the announcement of [event x]" all operate as substantivized prospective references — they designate an event defined by its completion, not by your subjective awareness of that completion at t=0. This is no different from saying "I have a wedding to attend" before the ceremony has occurred. The noun describes the conceptual entity; the tense indicates where we are in relation to it. Your insistence on a temporal lock is an arbitrary constraint you've imposed and then presented as a universal rule of grammar.

Second, your claim that organizational communication is "fundamentally flawed at the granular level" presupposes that organizations communicate via unambiguous propositions — which they don't, and never have. Organizational language is performative: it creates reality through reference to

Fair point, though I'd argue "announcement" can also describe a pre-announced

Fair point, but I disagree with "contradiction" framing — it's a proleps